UC-NRLF 


SB    Zfl    Sbl 


O 
LO 
O 


THE  ROBERT  E.  COWAN  COLLECTION 

I'KKSKNTKn    TO    THK 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CHUFORNIfl 


C.  P.  HUNTINGTON 

cJUNE,   1897. 

Recession  No.  °/fr '/fa  "7   Cla 


$4 
fe^A^ 


THE  PEOPLE'S  POWER 


OR 


HOW  TO  WIELD  THE  BALLOT, 


BY 


SIMHOX     STETSON 


"  In  my  judgment  it  is  th-  weak  point  in  the  theory  of  representative  u'overnment  as  now 
or^anixed  and  administered,  that  a  lar^e  portion  of  the  people  are  permanently  disfranchised." 

.1  \s.     A.    <!AKKIK.U>. 

"  It  seems  tit  that  whenever  there  is  a  law-making  body  of  one  hundred  members,  every  one- 
hundredth  part  of  the.  body  politic  should  have  the  ri<jht  to  elect  one  member."-  HARK. 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 

W.   M.    111XTON   \  CO.,  PRINTERS,  536  CLAY  STKKKT. 
1883. 


THE  PEOPLE'S  POWER 


OR 


H0¥  TO  WIELD  THE  BALLOT 


,  BY 
SIMEON    STETSON 


"In  my  judgment  ife  is  the  weak  point  in  the  theory  of  representative  government  as  now 
organized  and  administered,  that  a  large  portion  of  the  people  are  permanently  disfranchised.' 
— JA.S.  A.  GARFIELD. 

"  It  seems  fit  that  whenever  there  is  a  law-making  body  of  one  hundred  members,  every  one- 
hundredth  part  of  the  body  politic  should  have  the  right  to  elect  one  member."-  HARE. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1883, 

By  SIMEON  STETSON, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 
W>  M.  HINTON  &  CO.,  PRINTERS,  536  CLAY  STREET. 

1833. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  importance  of  a  correct  electoral  system Page  1 

Ihe  two  fatal  defects  of  the  present  one. — It  is  not  bricks  and  mortar 
but  persons  that  must  be  represented. — What  a  representative  body 

should  be 3 

Important  information  from  a  paper  read  before  the  American  Social 

Science  Association 5 

The  theory  of  our  government 4 

The  Republic  overthrown 9 

Congressional  elections 10 

President  Garfield's  testimony 10 

The  voters  are  "  locked  out." 13 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  mask  removed,  and  the  two  fatal  defects  on  exhibition 14 

The  ballot  monopoly 17 

The  false  and  the  true  compared 18 

The  present  system — Look  at  it 19 

CHAPTER  III. 

Proportional  representation — The  new  system  explained 21 

The  greatest  curiosity  in  America 22 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  report  of  the  United  States  Senate  Committee  criticised 25 

A  correct  system  will  act  as  a  "governor"   on  every  other  part  of  the 

machinery  of  state 29 

Mathematics  are  the  same  in  all  countries 33 

The  Senate  Committee  supports  our  charges 34 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 35 

Congress  has  admitted  that  the  people  are  not  represented 36 

The  question  that  naturally  follows 37 

CHAPTER  V. 

Other  plans — The  cumulative  vote 37 

The  free  list  plan 39 

How  to  choose  a  Governor 41 

The  key  to  freedom 42 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Ballot-box  battles — What  will  happen  when  they  cease 43 

Our  Civil  War  might  have  been  prevented 44 

There  is  no  lack  of  good  men,  but  the  present  system  prevents  the  people 

from  employing  them 46 

Party  politics 47 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTEK  VII. 

Chips  of  fact  and  logic 48 

Two-thirds  of  two-thirds  is  four-ninths 49 

President  Garneld  again  condemns  the  system 50 

Proof  that  Congress  does  not  represent  the  people 51 

There  is  but  one  party  of  two  parts 53 

Questions  to  reformers \ ! 54 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  press,  public  opinion  and  parties 54 

Quotations  from  Hnre  on  the  same 55 

Quotations  from  Calhoun  on  the  same 56 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Objections  answered 57 

CHAPTER  X. 

"  What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it  ?  " 59 

Vote  no  more  as  slaves 60 

What  must  be  done 60 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Other  attributes  of  sovereignty « 61 

The  referendum 61 

The  initiative 62 

The  veto 62 

The  Senate 63 

Conclusion . .  63 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  evidence  presented  in  these  pages  establishes  the  truth  of 
the  following  statements: 

First — That  the  fundamental  principle  of  this  government — 
which  is,  that  the  people  shall  rule  themselves  by  laws  enacted 
by  a  majority  thereof — has  been  nullified,  defeated  and  set  aside, 
and  the  government  thereby  virtually  overthrown. 

Second — That  this  has  been  brought  about  by  a  wrong  use  of 
the  ballot,  which  has  resulted  in  thwarting  the  people's  will; 
whereas,  it  was  intended  and  created  to  enable  them  to  execute 
their  will. 

Third — That  the  present  manner  of  wielding  the  ballot  makes 
it  a  counterfeit  and  a  sham,  and  therefore,  we  are  left  without  a 
real  ballot. 

Fourth — That  to  restore  this  government  into  the  hands  of  the 
people,  where  it  was  placed  by  its  founders,  either  force  or  a 
real  ballot  must  be  resorted  to. 

Fifth — It  is  also  shown  what  a  real  ballot  is,  and  how  a  coun- 
terfeit may  be  detected. 

Sixth — That  this  real  ballot  is  not  an  untried  theory,  but  an 
established  fact,  made  so  by  a  trial  of  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century. 

Seventh — How  to  effect  a  change  from  the  false  to  the  true. 

June  8,  1883.  SIMEON  STETSON. 


THE  PEOPLES  POWER; 


OR, 


How    to    Wield    the    Ballot 


SIMEON  STETSON. 


CHAPTEK    I. 

THE   FAULT   IS   IN   THE    MACHINE— THE    POWER   IS   THE    BEST   THE  WORLD 

AFFORDS. 

Very  unsatisfactory  and  frequently  very  bad  results  are  pro- 
duced by  the  application  of  power  to  imperfect  or  wrongly- 
constructed  machinery,  while  the  same  power  applied  to  an 
improved  mechanism  insures  complete  success. 

The  grand  results  obtained  by  the  use  of  steam  power  could 
never  have  been  secured,  had  not  an  equally  grand  improve- 
ment been  made  in  the  mechanism  constructed  to  utilize  that 
power. 

As  great,  but  at  the  same  time  a  very  simple  change  must 
be  made  in  that  part  of  our  governmental  machinery  by  which 
our  law-makers  are  elected,  before  other  reforms  pertaining  to 
the  general  welfare  can  be  permanently  established.  A  correct 
electoral  system  is  the  FOUNDATION  on  which  all  other  reforms 
must  rest ;  otherwise,  their  usefulness  may  be  greatly  impaired 
and  frequently  destroyed  altogether. 

Suppose  the  great  monopolies  and  other  numerous  evils  were 
all  swept  away  by  a  great  political  revolution — a  grand  and 
united  "  rally  "  of  the  voters  at  the  ballot-box.  "We  would  then 
be  just  where  we  were  before  these  things  existed.  Rogues  and 
political  frauds  would  not  all  be  exterminated,  probably,  and 
certainly  with  the  same  machinery  to  work  with,  they  could 
reinstate  the  old  institutions,  or  else  invent  new  schemes  for 
private  gain  at  public  expense. 


2  THE  FAULT  IS  NOT  IN  THE  PEOPLE. 

This  Republic  began  its  career  with  the  ballot.  And  yet, 
after  a  hundred  years  of  "VOTING,"  what  do  we  behold  ?  Merely 
a  declaration  of  principles,  with  an  oligarchal  power  controlling 
every  important  industrial  and  political  interest. 

And  do  we  now  propose  to  merely  "  wipe  out "  existing  evils, 
and  then  continue  for  another  century  to  apply  "The  People's 
Power"  to  a  mechanism  which  produces  the  very  opposite  of 
that  which  all  desire  ? 

We  hear  it  said  that  the  chief  fault  is  in  the  people;  that 
they  are  ignorant  of  the  true  principles  of  Political  Economy. 
Suppose  they  are.  Still,  if  they  cannot  with  their  present  me- 
chanism get  rid  of  what  they  already  know  to  be  wrong,  and 
what  for  many  years  they  have  tried  in  vain  to  remedy  through  the 
ballot,  how  can  they,  by  continuing  to  use  it  in  the  old  way, 
ever  obtain  the  benefit  of  a  new  truth  which,  in  the  future,  some 
one  may  convince  them  is  right? 

It  is  true  men  are  not  perfect.  They  are,  however,  sufficiently 
so  to  know,  in  many  cases,  right  from  wrong.  It  has  already 
been  decided  that  they  are  perfect  enough  to  govern  themselves 
— politically,  we  mean — not  so  well,  it  must  be  admitted,  as 
they  will  when  they  know  better  how  to  do  it. 

To  govern  themselves  at  all,  either  badly  or  well,  they  must 
use  some  sort  of  governmental  machinery,  so-called.  To  this 
machinery  power  must  be  applied — not  only  to  operate  it,  but 
to  direct  in  what  way  or  how  it  shall  operate. 

It  must  be  in  reality  a  power  of  two  properties — one  to  plan 
or  direct,  the  other  to  enforce  or  execute. 

The  only  power  available  for  this  purpose,  under  any  form  of 
government  now  existing,  is  man-power.  In  a  Republic  it  is 
"  The  People's  Power." 

However  imperfect  this  power  may  be,  IT  is  THE  BEST  THE 
WORLD  AFFORDS.  And  how  can  it  possibly  become  better  while 
we  use  a  mechanism  the  workings  of  which  have  a  constant  ten- 
dency to  make  the  people  worse,  which  enables  the  worst 
elements  in  society  to  occupy  commanding  positions,  from 
which  they  can  disseminate  any  false  doctrine  of  Political 
Economy  or  other  advice  that  will  aid  their  selfish  purpose  ? 
On  thrones  of  power  erected  by  the  people  bad  men  exert  an 
influence  and  wield  a  sceptre;  the  former  lures  men  from  the 


THE  CALAMITY  THAT  HAS  BEFALLEN  US.  3 

path  of  right;  the  latter  offers  pardon  for  all  manner  of  crimes. 

These  charges  are  admitted  facts.  The  other  conclusions 
mentioned  therewith  are  equally  self-evident. 

To  the  machine,  then,  we  must  go  to  find  the  first  and  chief 
cause  of  our  troubles. 

Strange  it  is  that  in  a  country  whose  people  believe  a  Kepub- 
lic  to  be  the  best  form  of  government  to  promote  the  general 
happiness,  prosperity,  liberty  and  social  progress  of  humanity, 
those  same  people  should  claim  that  those  blessings  had  ceased  to 
be,  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  neglect  to  ascertain  if  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  their  government  have  been  annulled,  and 
the  Republic  thereby  overthrown. 

That  such  a  calamity  has  actually  befallen  the  people  of  this 
country  is  susceptible  of  proof.  That  the  defects  of  their  elec- 
tive mechanism  is  the  cause  of  their  calamity  will  be  made  plain 
to  the  most  simple  mind,  by  facts  and  reason  which  the  most 
astute  logician  must  accept  as  conclusive. 

What  species  of  "infernal  machine"  can  this  be  ?  LET  us  EXAM- 
INE IT. 

THERE  ARE  TWO  FATAL  DEFECTS  IN  THIS  MECHANISM. 

One  defect  is  the  district  system  of  voting.  The  other  is  the 
ballot-box  majority. 

.Both  of  them  must  be  abolished.  Voters  who  think  alike  on 
any  one  or  more  questions  must  have  liberty  to  act  in  concert. 
They  are  now  separated  from  each  other  by  imaginary  geograph- 
ical lines,  whereby  each  portion  thus  cut  off  from  the  main  body 
is  liable  to  find  itself  shut  up  in  a  district  with  those  of  opposite 
opinions,  who,  by  force  of  numbers,  overpower  them.  Compul- 
sory districts,  therefore,  must  be  abolished,  and  the  voters  per- 
mitted to  district  themselves  in  any  way  they  like. 

The  districts  must  be  personal,  instead  of  territorial.  It  is  not 
lands,  nor  bricks  and  mortar  that  require  to  be  represented  in 
law-making  bodies — it  is  MEN. 

"A  representative  body  is  to  the  nation  what  a  chart  is  for  the 
physical  configuration  of  its  soil:  in  all  its  parts  and  as  a  whole, 
the  representative  body  should  at  all  times  present  a  reduced  pic- 
ture of  the  people — their  opinions,  aspirations,  and  wishes,  and 


4  THE    ABSURDITY    OF    OTIK   PRESENT    SYSTEM. 

that  presentation  should  bear  the  proportion  to  the  original  pre- 
cisely as  a  map  brings  before  us  mountains  and  dales,  rivers  and 
lakes,  forests  arid  plains,  cities  and  towns." — Mirabeau. 

This  "  picture  of  the  people  "  cannot  be  formed  in  any  law- 
making  body  unless  the  whole  people  are  represented  there. 
The  geographical  districts  help  to  make  it  impossible  for  them  to 
be  so  represented.  Turning  now  to  the  ballot-box  majority,  we 
find  that  it  tends  to  thwart  the  very  purpose  which  majorities  are 
intended  to  serve. 

We  shall,  as  we  proceed  with  our  examination,  find  that  this 
majority  and  district  system,  acting  together  outside  of  the  law- 
making  body  and  in  advance  of  its  acts,  create  therein  a  minor- 
ity rule,  notwithstanding  the  laws  there  enacted  are  passed  by  a 
majority  vote.  To  prove  this,  we  will  give,  first,  a  few  illustra- 
tions, and  after  that,  facts  to  support  them. 

First:  Suppose  there  are  three  parties,  and  the  can- 
didates of  two  of  them  receive  one  less  than  a  third  of  all  the 
votes.  The  candidates  of  the  other  party  will  then  be  elected, 
although  they  have  but  a  fraction — viz.,  two  votes — over  one- 
third  of  the  whole  number  polled.  Thus  they  would  become 
the  representatives  of  about  one-third  part,  instead  of  all  the 
people. 

The  idea  that  a  majority  of  the  voters  can  be  represented 
under  the  present  system,  when  there  are  three  parties,  is  there- 
fore absurd. 

But  we  will  suppose  there  are  only  two  parties.  Then  the 
one  having  a  majority  will  elect  all  the  representatives.  These 
representatives  assemble,  and  a  Bill  is  offered  which  becomes 
law  by  a  majority  of  one  or  more.  This  last  majority  is  only  a 
majority  of  those  first  chosen  at  the  ballot-box,  and  it  makes  no 
difference  whether  the  law-making  body  is  made  up  from  one 
party  wholly  or  of  ballot-box  majorities  from  both  parties. 
The  law  will  be  enacted  by  a  majority  of  a  majority;  that  is,  by 
the  majority  of  a  body  composed  cf  the  representatives  not  of 
the  whole  people,  but  only  a  part  of  them. 

The  theory  of  our  government  is,  that  all  the  people  shall 
have  a  voice  in  the  making  of  laws  :  that  the  voice  of  a  majority 
of  the  whole  shall  decide  what  shall  and  what  shall  not  be  law. 
But  where  shall  their  voice  be  heard,  and  how?  There  is  but  one 
place  and  but  one  way. 


THE    EXAMPLE    OF    TWENTY-FIVE    PARTNERS.  5 

The  place  is  in  the  law-making  body,  and  not  outside.  Tho 
•way  is  through  their  own  chosen  representatives,  and  not 
through  those  elected  by  an  opposing  party,  nor  even  by  a 
lucky  majority  of  their  own  party  in  an  adjoining  State  or  dis- 
trict. The  rule  of  the  majority  must  begin  in  the  law-making 
body,  and  go  forth  from  there  to  all  parts.  It  begins  now  at 
the  ballot-box,  and  there  it  stops;  it  does  not  go  forth  at  all. 
The  majority  rule  that  does  go  forth  is  a  majority  of  a  majority; 
or,  in  other  words,  a  minority  of  the  whole.  Thus  a  wrong  use 
of  the  ballot  defeats  the  very  purpose  for  which  it  was  created. 
We  are  not  in  possession  of  a  real  ballot,  but  a  counterfeit  and  a 
sham.  The  proof  of  this  will  be  still  stronger  when  we  see  how 
the  minority,  also,  is  handed  over  to  the  enemy. 

THE    DISTRICT   SYSTEM   AND    BALLOT-BOX   MAJORITY    COMBINED. 

The  following  illustration,  and  testimony  following  it,  is  from 
a  paper  read  before  the  American  Social  Science  Association,  at 
the  Lowell  Institute,  Boston,  April  5,  1870.* 

"  Suppose  a  firm  of  twenty-five  partners.  In  a  conflict  of 
opinion,  thirteen  may  rightfully  control  twelve. 

"  But  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  suppose  it  were  arranged 
that  the  partners  should  be  divided  into  five  sections,  five  of  the 
partners  in  each."  These  sections  would  correspond  to  five  dis- 
tricts in  our  political  partnership.  "Each  section  is  now  to 
select  one  to  compose  a  managing  committee  of  five."  This  com- 
mittee would  correspond  to  our  Legislature.  "  Now,  who  does 
not  see  that  each  one  of  this  managing  committee  might  be 
chosen  by  three  of  the  five  partners  in  a  section,  and  thus  the 
whole  five  of  the  committee  would  represent  only  fifteen  mem- 
bers of  the  firm,"  ten,  or  two  in  each  section,  having  voted 
against  them.  "  Bat  this  is  not  the  end.  This  committee  of 
five,  representing  only  three-fifths  of  the  firm,  are  now  to  legis- 

*  The  author  of  this  paper  is  David  Dudley  Field.  He  is  a  learned  jurist, 
and  those  who  rely  mainly  on  judicial  opinions  will  probably  accept  him  as 
authority  for  their  endorsement  of  an  important  decision  given  in  the  next 
chapter.  Those  who  have  learned  to  rely  mainly  on  their  own  opinions  will 
probably  endorse  the  same  because  it  is  good,  strong  "common  sense,"  sup- 
ported by  undeniable  facts,  or,  in  other  words,  both  by  the  mathematics  of 
reason  and  that  other  kind  in  which  numbers  are  used,  which,  for  some  pur- 
poses, is  inferior  to  the  first,  of  which  it  may  be  considered  a  part,  or 

branch-  /^,,*^*\ 

U-NIVERSITY 


6  THE    THEOET    OF    EVERY    LAW. 

late  for  the  company.  In  this  legislative  body  of  five,  three 
would  be  a  majority,  and  could  dictate  the  whole  business. 
Finally,  as  the  whole  committee  of  five  only  represented  fifteen 
metoibers,  a  majority  of  said  committee,  or  three,  would  repre- 
sent but  three-fifths  of  fifteen,  or  nine  of  the  whole  twenty-five 
members.  Would  anything  but  discontent  and  dissension,  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  year,  come  of  such  an  arrangement  ?  What 
would  happen  in  a  private  partnership  upon  so  faulty  a  system, 
does  happen,  and  must  inevitably  happen,  in  the  State  where  a 
like  faulty  system  of  government  is  maintained.  The  government 
of  a  republican  country  must  represent  the  people,  or  the  people 
will  be  dissatisfied.  Those  who  have  no  voice  in  legislation, 
whose  opinions  are  not  heard  or  heeded,  will  be  restive  under  au- 
thority, and  it  is  not  the  minority  only  which  suffers;  the  major- 
ity suffers  also  from  having  no  proper  check,  and  when  at  last 
the  scale  turns,  the  revulsion  is  violent  and  dangerous.  If  the 
anti-slavery  minority  could  have  been  heard  by  its  representa- 
tives from  the  beginning,  increasing  their  representatives  as  their 
strength  increased,  not  only  they,  but  the  pro-slavery  majority, 
would  have  been  benefited,  and  who  knows  but  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  slaves  might  have  been  procured  through  peaceful  leg- 
islation at  a  cost  in  treasure,  to  say  nothing  of  the  cost  of  blood, 
of  less  than  half  the  expenditure  of  the  war."  (See  U.  S.  Sen- 
ate Committee's  testimony,  in  another  chapter,  on  this  point.) 

ARE  THESE  THINGS  TRUE? 

Facts  are  stubborn  things;  by  them  theories  are  upset  or 
made  impossible  to  overthrow.  They  are  the  sleepless  sentinels 
of  Truth.  In  their  presence  the  conquering  legions  of  error  lay 
down  their  arms.  However  strong  in  their  own  convictions,  or 
in  the  "  world's  "  philosophy,  to  these  mute  sentinels  they  must 
surrender. 

The  facts  given  in  the  foregoing  illustrations  may  be  thought 
by  some  to  be  overdrawn  pictures;  we  will  therefore  let  the 
facts  taken  from  election  returns  decide.  If  they  prove  more 
than  our  supposed  examples  charge,  we  will  have  to  indict  the 
culprit — the  system — for  a  higher  crime.  I  quote  again  from 
the  paper  read  before  the  American  Social  Science  Association, 
April5,  1870: 


ELECTION   RETURNS    SHOW   HOW    THE    MACHINE   WORKS.  7 

We  call  ours  a  popular  representative  government;  that  is,  a  government 
of  the  people  acting  by  their  representatives.  The  theory  of  every  law  in  any 
one  of  the  States  is  expressed  in  the  enacting  clause  of  New  York  statutes, 
which  is  that  "  The  people  of  the  State  of  New  York,  represented  in  Senate 
and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows."  The  purpose  of  the  present  essay  is  to 
show  how  far  this  is  true,  and  if  not  true,  how  it  can  be  made  so. 

The  motto  supposed  to  be  written  here  upon  every  symbol  of 
authority  is,  "From  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people."  The  con- 
formity, or  rather  nonconformity,  of  our  practice  to  our  theory  is  the  subject 
for  present  discussion.  Our  Legislature  [referring 

to  New  York]  is  composed  of  a  Senate  and  Assembly;  the  former  consists  of 
32  members,  the  latter  of  128.  The  Senate  is  chosen  every  two  years,  the 
Assembly  every  year.  In  1868.  881  statutes  were  passed;  in  1869,  920.  We 
now  begin  to  see  how  truly,  or  rather  untruly,  speaks  the  enacting  clause  of 
each  of  these  1,801  statutes.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  the  Senate  chosen  in  the 
autumn  of  1867  for  the  next  two  years  may  not  be  the  Senate  which  the  people 
would  have  chosen  in  the  autumn  of  1868,  we  see  that  each  election  must 
have  resulted  in  giving  the  representation  to  a  majority  or  plurality  in  each 
district,  leaving  all  the  rest  of  the  voters  unrepresented.  Thus  it  may  hap- 
pen, and  does  in  fact  often  happen,  that,  inasmuch  as  a  bill  may  be  passed 
by  a  majority  of  the  members  elected  to  each  house,  17  Senators  and  65 
Members  of  Assembly  may  enact  a  law,  and  these  82  men  may,  in  fact,  hold 
their  seats  by  the  votes  of  a  minority  of  the  electors  of  the  State.  If  the 
enacting  clause  were  then  to  speak  truly,  it  would  run  in  this  wise:  "One- 
third  (or  one-fourth,  or  one-fifth,  as  the  case  may  be)  of  the  people  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  represented  in  Senate  and  Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows." 

This  comes  of  perverting  what  should  be  a  personal  selection  into  one  that 
is  local  or  territorial,  and  makes  the  Legislature  almost  as  likely  to  mis- 
represent as  to  represent  the  will  of  the  people.  Let  us  see  how  the  system 
works.  We  will  look  at  the  State  governments  first,  and  the  National  Gov- 
ernment afterward.  In  doing  so,  we  will  take  for  the  most  part  the  election 
of  1868,  the  time  of  the  last  presidential  election,  and  therefore  most  likely 
to  bring  out  a  full  vote. 

New  York  Senate  (elected  in  1867)— 324,687  votes  elected  17  Kepublicans; 
353,136  votes  elected  15  Democrats. 

In  the  Assembly  (elected  in  1868)— 397,899  rotes  elected  76  Republicans; 
431,510  votes  elected  52  Democrats. 

There  were  thus  28,499  more  votes  cast  for  the  15  Democrats  in  the  Sen- 
ate than  were  cast  for  the  17  Republicans,  and  if  the  representation  had  been 
faithful  to  the  principle,  the  majority  of  two  for  the  latter  would  have  been 
reversed  and  made  two  for  the  former. 

There  were  at  the  next  year's  election  33,611  more  votes  cast  for  the  52 
Democratic  Members  of  Assembly  than  for  the  76  Republican  Members.  If 
the  representation  had  been  proportional  to  the  votes,  the  number  of  Demo- 
crats elected  would  have  been  67  instead  of  52,  the  number  of  Republicans 
61  instead  of  76;  and  the  majority,  instead  of  being  24  for  the  Republicans, 
would  have  been  6  for  the  Democrats. 

Turning  to  other  States,  we  find  the  following  results: 

Maryland:     The  Democrats  cast  62,000  votes  and  elected  111. 

The  Republicans "    30,000     "  nobody. 

Delaware:      The  Democrats     "    10,980     "  "  28. 

The  Republicans "     7,623     " 

Kansas:          The  Republicans  "   31,000     "  "  108. 

The  Democrats     "    14,000     "  7. 

Nevada:         The  Republicans  "     6,000     "  51. 

The  Democrats     "      5,000     "  "  6. 


EITHER    THE    PRACTICE    OR    THE    THEORY    IS    WRONG. 


California: 


Vermont: 


Maine: 


The  Eepublicans 
The  Democrats 
The  Republicans 
The  Democrats 
The  Republicans 
The  Democrats 

54,592 
54,078 
44,000 
12,000 
70,000 
42,000 

23. 

97. 
240. 

26. 
243. 

37. 


Thus  Maryland's  Eepublicans  cast  nearly  a  third  of  all  the  votes  in  the 
State,  without  getting  a  single  representative  in  either  brar.ch  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. In  Delaware  the  Republicans,  with  over  40  per  cent  of  the  votes, 
elected  only  6  per  cent  of  the  Legislature,  while  in  California  they  polled  an 
actual  majority,  but  elected  less  than  one-fifth.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Democrats  in  Kansas  gave  a  third  of  the  votes,  and  obtained  but  6  per  cent 
of  the  Legislature;  in  Vermont  they  cast  21  per  cent  of  the  vote,  and  ob- 
tained but  9  per  cent  of  the  Legislature;  in  Maine  they  cast  37  per  cent  of 
the  vote,  and  obtained  only  13  per  cent  of  the  Legislature;  in  Nevada,  with 
nearly  half  the  vote,  they  had  but  10  per  cent  of  the  Legislature. 

Passing  now  to  the  National  Government,  we  find  that  the  representation 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  State  of  New  York  consists  of  17 
Republicans  and  14  Democrats,  though  the  former  received  but  416,492 
votes,  while  the  latter  received  423,265;  that  is  to  say,  the  popular  majority 
was  7,073  for  the  Democrats,  while  the  congressional  majori  y  in  the  dele- 
gation is  3  on  the  side  of  the  Republicans,  instead  of  being,  as  it  should 
have  been,  1  on  the  side  of  the  Democrats.  In  the  Senate  the  representa- 
tion is  still  further  removed  from  the  people,  as  the  following  statement  will 
show: 

"There  are  37  States  entitled  to  74  Senators.  The  18  States  having  the 
largest  population,  and  entitled  to  be  represented  in  the  Senate  by  36  Sena- 
tors, have  a  total  vote  of  5,022,871;  the  19  States  having  the  smallest  popu- 
lation, and  entitled  to  be  represented  in  the  Senate  by  38  Senators,  have  a 
total  vote  of  1,111,885." 

Abou*  one  and  one-tenth  million  of  voters  secure  38  Senators, 
while  five  millions  get  but  36.  The  following  tables  are  also 
"  educational:" 

787,310  votes. 
849,750  votes. 


16  States,  with  32  Senators,  cast 
New  York,    "2 


26  States, 
3  States, 


52 

6 


1,948,189  votes. 
2,024,240  votes. 


These  statements  serve  to  show  that  our  practice  and  our  theory  are  ir- 
reconcilable. We  must  accept  one  of  two  conclusions:  Either  the  practice  or 
the  theory  is  wrong. 

According  to  the  latter,  the  State  governments  are  republican  and  repre- 
sentative as  to  persons;  the  general  government  is  federal,  national  and  rep- 
resentative in  respect  to  both  persons  and  corporations — the  States. 

The  National  Government   depends  upon   the   representation   of 
the  States  in  the  Senate,  and  of  persons   in  the  House   of   Representatives. 

But  so  faulty  are  the  contrivances  for  carrying  out  either  theory,  that 
neither  in  the  National  nor  in  the  State  government  is  there  a  representation 
faithful  to  the  principle  on  which  it  rests.  Where  the  representation  is  in- 
tended to  be  personal,  it  so  happens  that  some  persons  only,  and  not  all, 
are  represented.  And  when  the  representation  is  intended  to  be  corporate — 
that  is,  in  the  national  Senate — the  State  may  fail  of  representation,  because 
the  Senators  are  chosen  by  the  Legislature,  which  in  its  turn  is,  or  may  be, 
chosen  by  a  minority  of  the  people  in  the  State. 


THE    MACHINE    OVERTHROWS    THE    REPUBLIC.  9 

"  OUR   PRACTICE    THUS    CONTRAVENES     THE     FUNDAMENTAL     PRINCIPLE 

OF  REPUBLICAN  GOVERNMENT,  which  is,  that  the  majority  must 
rule." 

The  above  is  really  an  important  "decision/'  It  was  given 
by  a  noted  lawyer,  whose  legal  opinion  on  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion must  be  conceded  to  be  equal  to  any  in  the  land.  That 
there  may  be  no  uncertainty  about  its  precise  meaning,  we  will 
turn  to  Webster  for  the  definition  of  the  word  "  contravene." 
Here  it  is:  "To  come  in  conflict  with;  to  oppose;  to  contradict; 
to  obstruct  the  operation  of  ;  to  DEFEAT.  Synonyms — to  contra- 
dict; cross;  obstruct;  NULLIFY;  DEFEAT;  SET  ASIDE. 

Thus,  according  to  the  law  in  the  case,  our  great  Kepublic  has 
been  defeated  and  set  aside — in  fact,  overthrown.  The  evidence 
on  which  this  decision  is  founded  is  not,  however,  the  worst 
part  of  the  story  by  any  means,  as  will  be  seen  in  subsequent 
chapters.  But  we  have  not  got  through  with  our  first  witness 
yet.  We  quote  again  from  the  same  authority: 

Thus  far  we  have  looked  at  the  matter  in  a  party  light;  but  that  by  no 
means  gives  us  all  there  is  in  it.  The  statutes  which  proceed  from  our  legis- 
lative chambers  are  often  the  acts,  not  of  parties  or  of  party  majorities,  but 
of  schemers  and  traffickers  in  legislation,  to  whom  our  present  system  gives 
scope.  Of  the  1,801  laws  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  New  York,  not  a 
hundred  were  of  a  general  nature,  and  of  these  SCARCE  A  TENTH  were  passed 
upon  party  grounds. 

We  have  thus  not  only  a  misrepresentation  of  parties,  but  a  representa- 
tion of  private  interests  struggling  for  private  legislation,  and  converting  our 
legislative  halls  into  scenes  of  jobbery  and  intrigue.  Under  the  false  pre- 
tenses of  party,  the  elector  is  cheated  or  seduced  into  voting  for  one  of  two 
men,  neither  of  whom  he  likes.  He  is  reduced  to  a  choice  of  evils,  and  he 
makes  it  under  the  pressure  of  party  discipline.  He  to  whom  a  father 
entrusts  his  daughter  for  protection,  and  who  abuses  his  trust  by  corrupting 
her,  is  accounted  a  monster  of  depravity;  but  his  crime  is  less  than  that  of 
the  legislator  who,  entrusted  by  his  constituents  with  the  great  function  of 
representing  them  in  making  laws,  abuses  that  trust  by  selling,  or  bartering, 
or  giving  away  his  vote.  And  yet,  the  miscreants  who  do  this  walk  the  streets, 
hold  up  their  heads,  look  honest  men  in  the  face,  and  even  get  themselves 
returned  from  year  to  year.  How  does  this  happen?  The  majority  does 
not  approve  their  conduct;  it  must  be  a  small  minority  which  does.  How, 
then,  do  they  manage  to  gain  and  regain  their  seats?  They  do  it,  not  by 
the  free,  unbiased  choice  of  the  electors,  but  by  the  contrivances  and  tricks 
of  our  present  system  of  local  or  district  elections,  with  their  machinery  of 
partisan  nominating  conventions.  Tkese  evils  do  not  spring  from  a  corrupt 
community.  The  majority  of  the  people  are  not  debauched.  The  fault  lies 
in  a  vicious  electoral  system,  which  produces  a  representation  neither  of  par- 
ties nor  of  the  general  public,  which  constrains  the  majority  and  stifles  the 
voices  of  large  portions  of  the  people. 

CONGRESSIONAL    ELECTIONS. 

Salem  Dutcher,  in  his  work  on  representation,  gives  the  fol- 
lowing ratio  of  represented  and  unrepresented  voters,  taken 


10  WHAT   OUR   ELECTION   RETURNS    FURNISH. 

from  election  returns  of  all  the  States:  Fortieth  Congress — 
Voters  represented  in  that  body,  58  per  cent;  unrepresented,  42 
per  cent.  Both  the  Forty-first  and  Forty-second  Congresses 
give  the  same  ratio.  He  further  says:  "Like  results  appear 
in  both  State  and  municipal  elections. "  From  his  tables  giving 
election  returns  in  eight  principal  cities,  in  1870,  I  condense  the 
following : 

"  In  New  Haven,  the  Democrats,  who  outnumbered  the  Ke- 
publicans  by  a  sixth,  have  but  a  third  of  the  Aldermen.  In 
Boston,  the  .Democrats,  though  outnumbering  the  Republicans 
a  full  third,  have  but  two-fifths  of  the  Council.  In  Baltimore, 
the  Eepublicans,  though  standing  to  the  Democrats  as  eleven  to 
eighteen,  have  but  one-thirtieth  of  the  Aldermen."  And  so  on 
through  the  list. 

Again,  he  says:  "  Out  of  every  hundred  men  who  approach 
the  polls,  forty  might  as  well  not  vote  at  all — or,  to  reduce  it 
still  lower,  two  in  every  five.  Our  election  returns  furnish 
authoritative  data  for  this  general  rule :  Given  any  general  or 
extended  election  of  representatives,  and  two-fifths  of  those 
voting  will  not  elect  a  single  representative.  When  such  a 
rule  is  possible,  and  when  it  works  out  such  a  result  as  we  have 
seen  it  produce  in  the  case  of  the  Forty-first  Congress,  the  abso- 
lute exclusion  from  representation  of  two  and  a  half  millions  of 
voters  at  one  swoop,  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  should  hear 
such  an  opinion  of  the  existing  electoral  system  as  that  deliv- 
ered June  23,  1870,  in  the  United  States  House  of  Representa- 
tives, by 

JAMES    A.    GARFIELD. 

He  said:  "  In  my  judgment  it  is  the  weak  point  in  the  theory 
of  representative  government,  AS  NOW  ORGANIZED  AND  ADMINISTERED, 
that  a  large  portion  of  the  people  are  permanently  disfranchised. 
There  are  about  10,000  Democratic  voters  in  my  district,  and 
they  have  been  voting  there  for  the  last  forty  years,  without  any 
more  hope  of  having  a  representative  on  this  floor  than  of  hav- 
ing one  in  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain." 

Mr.  Dutcher  adds:  "Is  it  not  a  great  grievance,  let  us  ask, 
that  two  and  a  half  millions  of  American  voters  might,  had  it 
been  physically  possible,  have  sat  at  any  time  since  1868  in  the 


THE    MORE    PARTIES    THE    WORSE    IT    IS.  11 

galleries  of  the  national  House  of  Representatives,  without  one 
of  the  242  members  on  the  floor  representing  a  single  man  of  the 
twenty-five  hundred  thousand  voters  before  him  ?" 

Mr.  Dutcher  gathered  his  facts  when  there  were  in  most 
States  only  two  parties;  as  the  number  of  parties  increase,  the 
number  of  unrepresented  voters  grows  larger.  The  following  is 
the  vote  of  California  for  members  of  the  Forty-fourth  Congress, 
elected  in  1875,  three  candidates  in  the  field: 

First  District — 49.1  per  cent  of  all  the  votes  cast  elected  Piper; 
50.9  per  cent  of  all  the  votes  cast  elected  nobody. 

Second  District — 43.4  per  cent  of  all  the  votes  cast  elected 
Page;  56.6  per  cent  of  all  the  votes  cast  elected  nobody. 

Third  District — Luttrell  elected  with  55.1  per  cent  of  the 
votes. 

Fourth  District — 48.8  per  cent  of  the  votes  elected  Wigginton. 
51.2  per  cent  of  the  votes  elected  nobody. 

At  the  election  of  1879  for  Members  of  the  Forty-sixth  Con- 
gress, the  vote  stood  in  the  Fourth  District: 

Eepublican 15,391 

Democratic ,12,109 

Workingmen 10,527 

Forty  and  one-half  per  cent  of  all  the  votes  sent  Pacheco  to 
Washington,  while  fifty-nine  and  a  half  per  cent  sent  NOBODY. 

In  the  other  districts  the  represented  and  unrepresented  were 
about  equally  divided.  The  elections  of  1876  and  1880  show 
about  the  same  ratio  as  the  above,  which  are  taken  from  McCar- 
ty's  Annual  Statistician.  Thus  we  have  in  one  State  four  success- 
ive elections  where  over  one-half  the  voters  are  unrepresented  in 
Congress. 

The  following  table  is  from  Dutcher's  work,  page  27.  It  shows 
the  number  of  representatives  each  party  had  in  the  Legislatures 
of  the  States  mentioned  for  the  year  1870-71,  and  what  the  same 
vote  would  have  given  them  under  proportional  representation; 
Any  one  can  prove  the  accuracy  of  the  figures  in  the  last  two 
columns,  which  give  the  proportion  each  party  should  have,  by 
referring  to  the  three  Slave  Pen  exhibits  or  tables,  and  reading 
the  explanation  there  given,  or  in  other  chapters  further  on. 


12 


DISFRANCHISED    IN    TWO    WAYS. 


STATES. 

VOTE. 

MEMBERS 

ACTUAL. 

PROPORTIONATE. 

Republican. 

Democratic. 

Rep 

Dem. 

Rep. 

Dem. 

Arkansas 

28,190 
9,982 
108,801 
40,666 
89,083 
58,824 
33,367 

25,488 
12,458 
67,547 
20,496 
126,059 
73,959 
12,058 

78 
0 
120 
100 
15 
13 
236 

30 
30 
30 
18 
123 
94 
29 

57 
13 
92 
79 
57 
47 
195 

ra 

17 
58 
39 
81 
60 
70 

Delaware 

Iowa  

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Maryland  

Vermont  

A  PROBLEM  TO  SOLVE. 

I  now  ask  the  reader  to  take  Dutcher's  proven  statement  or 
"  authoritative  data"  (gathered  from  election  returns),  which 
show  that,  at  best,  only  three-fifths  of  the  voters  are  represented, 
and,  following  the  operations  of  legislation  as  given  in  the  ex- 
ample of  the  25  partners,  work  out  the  solution  of  the  following 
problem : 

If  a  legislative  body  representing  15,  or  three-fifths  of  a  firm 
25  in  number,  can  enact  laws  that  will  represent  9,  or  about  one- 
third  of  the  firm,  then  how  many  in  our  national  and  State  part- 
nerships will  be  represented  by  laws  enacted  by  the  representa- 
tives of  only  three-fifths  of  the  voters  ? 

If  men  and  mathematics  are  equally  reliable,  the  proportion 
in  each  case  will  be  the  same — namely,  about  one-third.  But 
men  are  not,  on  an  average,  quite  so  reliable  as  mathematics, 
and  it  may  therefore  result  that  in  actual  practice  not  a  quarter 
of  one-third  will  be  represented.  And  that  is  JUST  WHAT  DOES 

TAKE  PLACE. 

It  is  not  important  to  bring  forward  all  the  evidence  on  this 
point.  Every  one  knows  that  conventions  and  party  leaders  are 
in  most  cases  controlled  by  powers  "  behind  the  throne,"  who 
are  interested  in  having  the  voters  misrepresented  as  well  as  un- 
represented, knowing  that  by  this  double  fraud  those  who  vote 
for  the  majority  will,  as  a  rule,  be  as  completely  disfranchised  as 


THE    VOTEES    ABE    "LOCKED    OUT."  13 

those  who  fail  to  elect  a  representative.  The  people  are  so  car- 
ried away  by  parties  that  they  generally  vote  for  parties  instead 
of  principles.  But  only  a  small  number  of  the  laws  passed  are 
really  party  measures.  In  the  case  already  given,  out  of  1,800,  not 
a  dozen  were  of  that  character.  Thus  we  begin  to  see  how  it  is 
that  we  cannot  be  represented  by  the  laws  to  any  great  extent, 
so  long  as  we  vote  for  parties  all  the  time,  and  for  ideas  or 
principles  only  occasionally.  When,  in  addition  to  this,  we  em- 
ploy a  mechanism  that  makes  it  useless  to  vote  for  a  principle, 
unless  a  majority  of  all  the  voters  will  do  likewise,  it  is  plain  to 
be  seen  that  nearly  the  whole  body  of  voters  in  all  parties  are 
left  without  a  representative  of  their  own  choosing.  The  minor- 
ity party  can  elect  none,  and  those  who  vote  with  the  majority 
merely  elect  men  rung  in  on  them  by  their  party  leaders,  who 
too  often  are  devoid  of  principle.  In  order  to  have  a  real  repre- 
sentative, the  voters  must  both  select  and  elect  him.  But  how 
can  they  select  him  through  the  present  mechanism  ?  The  situ- 
ation is  as  follows:  "We  must  belong  to  a  GREAT  party,  or  else  it 
is  useless  to  select  ANY  ONE  to  vote  for.  This  great  party  requires 
the  whole  time  of  its  managers,  who  soon  get  to  be  professional . 
politicians.  They  can  control  conventions,  and  nominate  whom 
they  please.  Nearly  the  whole  time  of  the  voters  is,  and  must 
be,  occupied  in  other  ways.  If  a  nomination  fails  to  suit  them, 
they  cannot,  in  the  short  time  before  election,  organize  and 
make  a  new  one  with  any  hope  of  success;  generally  it  would 
"  split  the  party." 

Politics  has  come  to  be  a  "  great  business."  It  requires 
"  CAPITAL"  to  run  it.  The  voters  must  do  the  work  laid  out  by 
the  bosses,  just  as  the  workmen  in  a  mine  or  factory.  If  they 
insist  on  having  something  to  say  in  the  matter,  and  set  up  a 
new  candidate,  they  are  "  locked  out."  All  this  and  much  more 
is  caused  by  the  two  defects  first  mentioned.  The  monopolists 
saw  long  ago  what  the  people  do  not  yet  see.  They  saw  that 
by  compelling  a  body  of  men  to  vote  for  two  candidates  in  two 
separate  districts,  when  they  have  only  enough  votes  to  elect 
one,  their  votes  would  count  for  nothing.  They  saw  that  this 
voting  by  districts,  combined  with  the  necessity  of  getting  a 
majority  at  the  ballot-box,  would  render  the  ballot  worthless  to 
every  one  except  the  monopolists  themselves.  (See  the  three 


14  THE    BALLOT    MONOPOLY. 

exhibits  in  Chapter  II.)  They  have  discovered  that  the 
ballot-box  majority  creates  a  ballot  monopoly,  and  that  all  they 
have  to  do  in  order  to  get  the  whole  proceeds  and  profits  of  that 
monopoly  is  to  control  the  majority  party  or  make  a  majority 
party,  either  of  which  they  can  frequently  do  by  the  purchase 
of  a  single  vote.  A  correct  mechanism  will  give  to  the  voters 
the  control  of  their  parties. 


CHAPTER   II. 

CS    EXHIBITED — "  DON'T 
THROW    YOUR    VOTE    AWAY." 

At  each  and  every  "election  the  great  battle-cry  is,  "Don't 
throw  your  vote  away."  But  why  should  any  one  who  has 
principles  to  support  be  compelled  to  throw  away  his  vote  in 
trying  to  elect  some  one  who  will  represent  those  principles? 
What  is  it  that  causes  his  vote  to  be  thrown  away  ?  Is  it  not 
the  ballot-box  majority,  together  with  the  compulsory  district 
system  of  voting  ?  If  a  certain  number  of  voters  can  and  do 
elect  a  representative,  while,  at  the  same  time,,  an  equal  number 
have  their  votes  "  thrown  away,"  then  they  are  not  free  men; 
they  are  to  that  extent  restrained  and  enslaved. 

The  following  tables  will  give  a  clear  view  of  the  slave-pens  in 
which  the  voters  are  confined  on  election  days.  They  are  called 
districts — quite  an  innocent,  but  very  inappropriate  name.  -Each 
table  contains  seven  slave-pens,  or  districts,  which  give  a  clear 
view  of  the  combined  operation  of  the  district  system  and  ballot- 
box  majority. 

This  table  represents  a  State  divided  into  seven  districts,  with 
three  parties  in  the  field.  We  will  call  them  the  a,  b  and  c 
parties,  or  the  Eepublican,  Democratic  and  Temperance  par- 
ties. The  districts  are  here  shown  as  running  across  the  page, 
and  the  different  parties  are  grouped  together  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, in  order  to  facilitate  examination.  Observe  that  each  dis- 
trict has  the  same  number  of  voters — namely,  7;  or  we  may 
suppose  each  letter  to  represent  1,000,  or  any  other  given  num- 


THE    SLAVE    PENS. 


15 


ber  of  voters;    also,  the  whole  number  of  either  party  in  the 
seven  districts  gives  the  total  of  that  party  in  the  State. 

Thus  we  have  21  in  the  a,  14  in  the  b,  and  14  in  the  c  party. 
Our  table  then  represents  the  number  of  each  party  in  the  whole 
State,  and  also  the  number  in  each  district.  Election  day 
comes,  and  the  "voters"  turn  out,  armed  with  the  mighty 
ballot.  What  is  the  result  of  the  conflict  ?  The  majority  rules 
in  America,  does  it?  Let  us  see:  The  a  party  of  21  get  3  law- 
makers, while  the  b  party  of  14  get  4,  or  a  majority;  but  the  c 
party,  numbering  14  also,  get  none. 

EXHIBIT  No.    1. 


DISTRICTS. 


LAW-MAKERS. 


1.  c  c  aa  bbb B 

2.  cc  a  a  bbb .    B 

3.  cc  aa  bbb B 

4.  c  c  a  a  bbb B 

5.  a  a  a  a  c  cb .A 

G.  aa  aa  ccb A 

7.  aa  aa  cca A 

VOTERS    IN    EACH    PARTY. 

A  party   21 

B  party 14 

G  party 14 

Total..  ..49 


The  c  party  in  this  table  is  a  party  just  started.  Its  members 
are  poor,  but  gritty.  They  declared  they  would  not  be  abused 
any  longer  by  the  "  bosses"  of  the  two  old  parties,  neither  of 
which  were  doing  anything  for  the  cause  of  temperance.  The 
result  of  their  attempt  to  be  free  is,  that  they  find  themselves 
not  only  locked  out,  but  locked  up  also,  in  the  slave-pens. 


16 


LOCALITY    AGAIN    BEATS    NUMERICAL    STRENGTH. 


EXHIBIT   No.    2. 


LAW- MAKERS. 


1.  cc  bb  a  a  a A 

2.  cc  bb  aaa A 

3.  cc  bb  aaa A 

4.  cc  bb  aaa..., A 

5.  bb  bb  c  c  a B 

6.  bb  bb  cca B 

7.  bb  bb  ccb B 

VOTERS    IN    EACH   PARTY. 

A  party 14 

B  party 21 

C  party .....14 

Total.  ,.49 


This  table  we  will  suppose  to  represent  the  voters  in  another 
State,  or  in  the  same  State  at  another  election,  when  the  b 
party  numbers  21  and  the  a  party  14 — just  the  reverse  of  our 
first  example,  Locality  again  beats  numerical  strength. 

It  will  be  seen,  also,  that  3  of  the  a  party  can  elect  a  candi- 
date in  each  of  the  first  four  districts,  while  8  of  the  c  party  and 
the  same  number  of  the  b  party  elect  none.  They  are  defeated 
by  being  compelled  to  vote  for  more  candidates  than  they  have 
votes  to  elect.  They  are  cut  off,  and  defeated  in  detail. 


THE    PAPER    SWORD    ON   EXHIBITION. 

EXHIBIT  No.   3. 


17 


LAW-MAKEKS 


1.  cc  bb        aaa A 

2.  c  c  bb        aaa A 

3.  c  c  bb        aaa A 

4.  cc  bb        aaa A 

5.  c  c  66        aaa A 

6.  -    cc  66        aaa A 

7.  cc  66        aaa A 

VOTERS   IN   EACH   PARTT. 

A  party 21 

B  party. 14 

C  party 14 

Total.  ..49 


In  Exhibit  No.  2,  the  a  party,  although  only  two-thirds  the 
number  of  the  6  party,  had  a  majority  in  the  Legislature.  But 
majorities  do  not  always  secure  safety.  Unanimity  is  the  only 
danger-proof  position  in  party  warfare.  This  position  is  fre- 
quently secured  by  means  of  ballot-box  and  district  majorities. 
In  this  table  the  law-making  body  is  UNANIMOUS.  What  a  won- 
derful weapon  the  ballot  is ! 


THE   BALLOT    MONOPOLY. 

The  three  foregoing  exhibits  are  true  pictures  of  the  ballot 
monopoly — a  monopoly  that  is  worse  and  more  tyrannical  than 
that  of  transportation  or  any  other  business. 

There  is  no  law  to  prevent  men  from  uniting  to  build  ships 
and  railroads  to  the  extent  of  their  capital.  But  here  we  have  a 
law  that  says  to  the  voters:  You  shall  not  combine  your  voting 


18  THE    OLD   AND   NEW   COMPARED. 

capital — your  ballots— to  elect  even  one  representative,  unless 
you  all  live  in  the  same  district.  The  actual  working  of  such  a 
system,  as  shown  by  election  returns,  frequently  produces  re- 
sults worse  than  our  three  exhibits  represent.  Even  Exhibit  No. 
8  is  surpassed  by  actual  facts,  as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of 
Wyoming  in  1870.  With  but  two  parties,  the  vote  stood:  lie- 
publican,  1,666;  Democratic,  1,439,  and  yet  the  Territorial  Leg- 
islature was  "  UNANIMOUSLY  "  Democratic.  By  referring  to  cases 
cited  in  different  States,  on  page  7,  it  will  be  seen  that  our 
tables  do  not  picture  the  case  in  as  strong  colors  as  it  deserves. 

Now  let  us  suppose  the  district  lines  in  the  three  exhibits  to 
be  abolished,  and  the  voters  allowed  to  combine  as  they  see  fit. 
It  will  be  seen  in  each  of  the  tables  that  the  whole  number  of 
voters  in  a  State  is  49;  number  of  representatives  to  be  elected, 
7;  divide  49  by  7,  and  we  have  the  number  required  to  elect  one 
representative,  namely,  7.  Therefore  justice,  common  sense  and 
a  genuine  representative  government  demand  that  every  7  voters 
— or  7,000,  or  other  number,  as  the  case  may  be — shall  be  al- 
lowed to  vote  for  that  one.  Apply  such  a  rule  to  any  one  of 
these  three  tables,  and  the  result  is  that  each  party  would  get 
its  just  proportion  of  law-makers.  Take  Exhibit  No.  2,  where 
14  a  voters  elect  more  than  21  b  voters;  remove  the  district  lines, 
and  permit  7  of  the  b  party  to  cast  one  vote  each  for  one  candi- 
date, that  being  all  it  will  require  to  elect  him.  Permit  7  more 
of  the  same  party  to  elect  another,  and  7  more  to  vote  for  and  to 
a  certainty  elect  a  third.  Compel  the  a  party  to  do  the  same; 
then  it  will  have  two  members  in  the  Legislature,  instead  of  a 
majority  of  that  body,  to  which  it  is  not  entitled;  the  c  party, 
also,  will  get  two,  and  your  Legislature  can  then  decide  by  a 
REAL  majority  vote  what  the  law  shall  be.  This  does  away  with 
district  lines  and  the  ballot-box  majority  as  between  parties. 
There  will  be  nothing  to  prevent  them,  however,  from  voting  by 
districts,  so  to  speak,  or,  in  other  words,  selecting  candidates 
from  their  own  town  or  city;  but  there  will  be  no  COMPULSION. 

The  vote  will  merely  indicate  the  number  of  representatives 
each  party  is  entitled  to,  and  who  they  are.  When  a  small  num- 
ber find  they  cannot  elect  any  one  alone,  they  can  join  their 
votes  to  others  in  one  or  more  localities,  and  thus  be  represented 
by  a  man  of  their  choice.  How  absurd  it  is  to  think  we  have  the 
ballot,  when  one  body  of  voters  can  elect  a  representative,  while 


OP  T&K 

UNIVERSITY 


WHAT    CAN   BE   WORSE LOOK   AT   IT.  19 


another  and  more  numerous  body  are  prohibited  from  having 
one.  Should  3,  or  3,000  voters  have  a  representative,  and  4, 
or  4,000  have  none,  simply  because  they  live  in  different  local- 
ities ? 

When  men  unite  their  votes,  they  do  so  because  their  ideas 
are  the  same  or  similar.  To  forcibly  separate  them  by  district 
lines,  so  as  to  be  overpowered,  out-voted  and  defeated  in  de- 
tail, and  thus  deprived  of  a  representative,  is  plainly  wrong. 
Therefore,  Down  with  the  slave  pens!! 

WHAT  SHALL  THE  REMEDY  BE? 

The  remedy  is  Proportional  Eepresentation  (see  chapter  under 
that  head).  This  is  not  an  untried  theory;  it  was  established  by 
Denmark  in  1855.  That  the  people  in  other  countries,  and  espe- 
cially in  this,  have  not  adopted  it,  is  owing  apparently  to  the 
corrupt  nature  of  party  politics  and  the  ignorance  concerning  it 
among  all  classes,  who  are  kept  in  ignorance  in  a  great  measure 
by  the  sophistries  and  diversions  of  party  politicians,  who  are 
turned  out  in  countless  swarms  through  the  present  machin- 
ery, and  by  it  given  influence  and  power  to  distort  and  suppress 
the  truth. 

It  matters  not  what  new  elective  system  may  be  offered  to  the 
worll,  the  politicians  find,  or  pretend  to  find,  some  fault  in  it. 
If,  however,  the  Rothschilds  should  offer  their  whole  wealth  to 
the  inventor  of  a  system  that  would  more  completely  place  the 
people  at  the  mercy  of  an  oligarchic  class  than  that  now  used 
in  the  United  States,  the  reward  could  never  be  justly  claimed. 
And  yet,  when  the  best  system  ever  established  on  earth  is  of- 
fered, our  c<  statesmen"  immediately  furnish  magnifying  glasses 
for  the  people,  and  invite  them  to  examine  what  they  call  its  bad 
points— as  though  the  old  one  were  not  all  bad. 

LOOK  AT  IT. 

It  wastes  millions  of  the  people's  money  in  enormous  election 
expenses,  which  are  ten-fold  greater  than  a  just  system  would 
create. 

It  tempts  all  parties  to  steal  millions  to  be  used  in  perpetuating 
their  power;  and  worse  yet,  ittgives  the  control  of  legislation  to 


20  IT   IS   THE    CAUSE    OF   MANY    EVILS. 

the  agents  of  highway  robbers,  who   make  laws  by  which  the 
people  are  constantly  plundered. 

It  wastes  votes  by  the  million.  One-half  are  thrown  away  in 
trying  to  elect  candidates  nominated  by  a  "  ring,"  and  the  other 
half  are  worse  than  wasted  by  electing  them. 

It  steals  votes,  by  permitting  a  false  count,  or  by  enabling  fraud- 
ulent voters  to  create  a  majority,  and  thus  deprive  honest  and 
legitimate  voters  of  a  majority  which  they  have  fairly  earned. 
One  party  does,  and  the  other  party  steals  "  to  keep  even." 
" They  all  do  it." 

It  not  only  encourages  every  species  of  political  fraud,  but  is 
one  great  cause  of  increasing  depravity  and  crime.  Even  murder 
is  a  part  of  its  devilish  work. 

It  helps  to  keep  the  people  in  ignorance;  for  it  enables  the 
worst  men  to  control  parties,  which  parties  control  the  press, 
through  which  no  ray  of  light  that  would  help  the  people  to  see 
their  own  way  is  allowed  to  come.  While  they  are  in  the  dark, 
they  will  listen  to  the  party  horn,  and  either  follow  that  or  fail 
to  act  for  themselves. 

It  creates  discord  and  discontent  in  every  community,  and 
causes  disputes  and  denial  s  to  take  the  place  of  honest  inquiry 
after  knowledge. 

It  is  an  incentive  to  war.  By  preventing  the  election  of  a  due 
proportion  of  the  friends  of  peace,  it  enables  unscrupulous  or 
unbalanced  leaders  to  plunge  the  nation  into  civil  war,  or  to 
bring  on  a  foreign  invasion.  For  proof,  see  United  States  Sen- 
ate Committee's  Keport  and  other  testimony,  in  chapter  on 
Ballot-Box  Battles. 

Its  poison  makes  the  party  in  power  a  blight  when  the  nation 
is  at  peace,  and  in  war  the  party  out  of  power  is  frequently  more 
dangerous  than  the  hostile  foe. 

It  is  a  MONOPOLY  of  the  worst  type  !  !  For  it  not  only  gives  the 
representatives  of  less  than  half  the  people  a  monopoly  of  legis- 
lative power,  but  it  ends  by  enabling  monopolies  of  all  kinds  to 
control  party  nominations  and  elect  their  tools  in  spite  of  the 
people,  and  that,  too,  by  a  minority  vote.  It  is,  in  fact,  the 
fountainhead  and  feeder  of  all  monopolies! 

It  is  a  system  of  slavery  pure  and  simple,  since  it  gives  the  dis- 
honest few  who  will  sell  their  votes  the  power  to  sell  a  whole 
parly,  the  honest  ones  included. 


A    SYSTEM   BASED    ON   MATHEMATICS.  21 

It  rewards  the  liar  and  the  hypocrite,  but  punishes  the  man 
•who  dares  to  speak  as  he  thinks.  Such  a  man  can  rarely  become 
a  law-maker. 

Finally:  It  is  a  transparent  LIE  !!  For,  under  the  pretence 
of  a  majority  vote,  it  permits,  first,  the  rule  of  a  minority,  and 
finally,  the  rule  of  "The  Ring!" 

It  must  give  way  to  a  system  that  is  rational  and  just.  The 
people's  power  must  be  applied  to  a  mechanism  that  will  neither 
cripple  nor  enslave  them . 


CHAPTER    III. 

PROPORTIONAL   REPRESENTATION — THE    NEW    SYSTEM. 

Proportional  representation  is  called  by  some  writers  personal 
representation,  and  by  others  the  preferential  vote.  It  permits 
persons  to  be  represented  all  the  time,  and  parties  also,  whereas 
now  parties  only  are  represented,  and  only  in  theory  even  then. 
It  permits  voters  to  exercise  a  preference  as  to  whom  they  will 
vote  for;  now  they  must  either  vote  the  ticket  or  throw  their 
votes  away. 

It  seems  that  Thomas  Hare,  barrister- at-law,  of  London,  and 
Mr.  Andne,  a  noted  mathematician,  and  Minister  of  Finance  of 
Denmark,  each  by  himself,  solved  the  problem  of  electing  rep- 
resentatives by  quotas  of  the  electors. 

What  is  a  quota,  and  how  is  it  obtained  ?  Suppose  there  are 
10  representatives  to  be  elected  by  10,000  voters.  Divide  10,000 
by  10,  and  the  quotient  is  the  quota  or  number  of  votes  requisite 
to  elect  one.  Then  every  body  of  voters  numbering  1,000  can 
elect  one.  Each  elector  is  to  vote  for  one  candidate  only.  The 
State  will  be  the  district.  At  the  same  time,  the  people  can 
vote  by  districts  whenever  they  see  fit.  When,  however,  they 
are  dissatisfied  with  the  nominations  made  by  their  party,  and 
are  too  few  in  numbers  in  any  one  locality  to  form  a  quota 
alone,  they  can  combine  with  those  in  any  part  of  the  State  to 
elect  whom  they  please.  There  will  be  no  compulsory  districts. 
There  will  be  no  majority  at  the  ballot-box  as  regards  parties 


22 


THE   GREATEST    CURIOSITY   IN   AMERICA A   REAL   BALLOT. 


The  vote  there  will  merely  record  the  number  of  representatives 
each  party  is  entitled  to,  the  names  of  the  various  candidates, 
and,  finally,  the  names  of  those  who  are  elected.  The  following 
iSjthe  form  of  the  ballot  given  by  Mr.  Hare: 


FOR    MEMBER    OF   THE    ASSEMBLY. 


1. 

E.  L.  WHITE. 

6. 

ETHAN  ALLEN. 

2. 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS. 

7. 

3. 

ALFRED  CRIDGE. 

8. 

4. 

JAS.  B.  WEAVER. 

9. 

5. 

B.  FRANKLIN. 

10. 

Suppose  there  are  seven  representatives  to  be  elected.  Ihis 
ballot,  we  will  suppose,  contains  the  names  of  Republican  can- 
didates. The  ballot  expresses  in  substance  this:  "  I  desire  to 
be  represented  by  the  candidate  whose  name  I  have  placed  No. 
1.  If  he  should  obtain  his  quota  of  votes  before  mine  comes  to 
be  counted,  or  if  he  should  fail  to  obtain  a  sufficient  number, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  elected,  I  direct  that  my  vote  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  candidate  I  have  placed  as  No.  2,  and,  under  the 
same  conditions,  to  candidate  No.  3,  and  so  on." 

The  use  of  this  "  voting  paper"  accomplishes  what  would  hap- 
pen if  all  the  electors  and  all  the  candidates  were  collected  in  a 
room  together: 

"  The  quota  being  ascertained,  the  electors  would  '  rally  '  around  the  can- 
didates of  their  first  choice.  Some  candidates  would  have  a  large  following, 
some  a  small  one.  The  most  popular  would  be  elected  at  once,  having  a 
full  quota  and  more,  The  surplus — the  last  comers — would  then  seek  each 
the  candidate  of  his  second  choice,  and  this  would  probably  elect  some  of 
those.  The  rest  of  tbe  candidates  would  have  their  own  supporters,  many  or 
few,  but  all  less  than  enough.  If,  now,  the  candidates  having  the  fewest 
votes,  say  those  with  only  a  single  follower,  should  withdraw,  and  then  the 
candidates  with  two  votes,  and  so  on,  their  followers  would  naturally  trans- 
fer their  support  to  more  prominent  men,  who  would  thus  gradually  collect 
enough  supporters  to  elect  them.  Their  quotas  would  fill  up.  In  this  way 
there  would  presently  remain  in  the  field  only  just  enough  candidates 
to  fill  the  places,  all  of  whom  would  have  a  full  quota  and  be  duly  elected. 
The  division  of  the  constituency  into  equal  groups,  differing  widely  in  opin- 
ion, but  each  unanimous  in  the  support  of  its  own  man,  would  have  been 
accomplished." — [Appendix  M  of  Hare's  Work,  Keport  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Electors  in  Nominating  Candidates  for  Overseers  of  Harvard  College. 


ITS   SIMPLICITY   ALARMS   THE    POLITICIANS.  23 

There  were  12  to  be  nominated,  and  there  were  355  ballots 
cast.  The  result  was  highly  satisfactory,  and  the  counting  of 
the  ballots  required  "not  nearly  so  much  time"  as  under  the 
old  system. 

The  "  voting  paper"  or  ballot  just  shown  represents  one  on 
which  there  are  ten  spaces  for  names.  In  the  example  given  we 
will  suppose  there  were  seven  representatives  to  be  elected,  and 
that  he  who  cast  that  particular  ballot  saw  fit  to  name  only  six, 
in  the  order  of  his  preference.  The  first  is  his  first  choice,  who, 
if  elected  by  the  aid  of  his  ballot,  would  become  his  representative, 
and  the  other  five  names  would  not  be  counted.  If,  however, 
when  the  votes  are  being  counted,  this  first  choice  candidate  gets 
enough  to  elect  him  before  this  particular  ballot  is  counted,  then 
it  will  be  counted  for  one  of  the  other  names  thereon  that  has 
not  yet  obtained  a  quota;  if  No.  2  has  obtained  a  quota,  or,  when 
all  are  counted,  No.  2  has  so  few  votes  that  this  one  added  will 
still  be  insufficient  to  elect  him,  then  this  ballot  will  be  counted 
for  No.  3  or  some  other  one,  as  before  explained.  At  the  same 
time  the  voter's  first  choice  will  also  have  been  elected  without 
his  vote.  Thus  each  voter  will  help  to  elect  all  the  representa- 
tives his  party  is  entitled  to — if  he  is  voting  in  a  party  organiza- 
tion. The  numbers,  1,  2,  3,  and  so  on,  are  only  an  invention  to 
insure  the  counting  of  the  ballot  for  one  of  the  six  names  there- 
on, and  thereby  facilitate  the  election  of  representatives  by 
quotas. 

Mr.  Hare,  in  replying  to  the  charge  of  complexity,  says:  "The 
form  of  the  voting  paper  or  ballot,  without  making  it  compulsory 
on  the  voter  to  name  more  than  one  candidate,  yet  permits  him 
to  insert  a  second  name  under  the  first,  a  third  under  the  second, 
and  so  on,  at  his  discretion.  Those  who  come  to  the  examination 
of  this  scheme  for  the  first  time  will  probably  be  amazed  to  learn  that 
so  far  as  there  is  anything  to  be  done  by  the  voter,  this  is  the  whole 
extent  of  the  complexity  from  which  so  many  politicians  have 
shrunk." 

We  will  suppose  a  Legislature  of  100  members  is  to  be  chosen, 
and  there  are  200,000  votes  cast.  If  we  divide  this  number  by 
100,  the  number  to  be  elected,  we  have  as  a  quotient  2,000.  If, 
now,  every  2,000  voters  elect  one  man,  the  Legislature  will  be 
complete.  A  party  numbering  80,000  would  elect  forty  mem- 
bers, one  of  40,000  would  get  20,  and  one  of  2,000  would  get  one. 


24       IT  WILL  ENABLE  THE  PEOPLE  TO  CONTROL  PARTIES. 

If  a  candidate  gets  more  first-choice  votes  than  a  quota,  the  sur- 
plus will  be  given  to  the  candidates  No.  2  on  such  surplus  bal- 
lots. If  any  one  receive  a  quota  of  second-choice  votes,  he  also 
is  elected,  and  all  surplus  votes  cast  for  him  will  go  to  the  can- 
didates indicated  on  such  surplus  ballots  who  have  not  yet  re- 
ceived a  quota.  It  will  be  seen  that  by  voting  for  one  candidate 
only,  EACH  vote  counts  one; ,  whereas,  by  the  old  method,  thous- 
ands of  votes  are  often  given  for  a  candidate  more  than  needed 
to  elect  him,  and  thus  wasted,  while  all  those  cast  for  unsuccess- 
ful candidates  are  wasted.  If  the  whole  number  required  to 
complete  the  Legislature  fail  to  obtain  a  full  quota,  the  number 
is  completed  by  taking  those  having  the  highest  number  of  votes. 

This  system  will  give  the  people  power  to  control  parties  and 
party  leaders.  They  never  can  control  the  monopolists  until 
they  control  the  others.  By  this  system  every  quota  of  voters  in 
a  party  can  run  an  independent  candidate  without  giving  an  op- 
posing party  the  victory,  as  now,  by  splitting  the  party.  Be- 
sides, every  quota  can  be  its  own  nominating  convention.  Fur- 
thermore, to  become  a  convention,  it  would  not  be  absolutely 
necessary  to  meet  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  candidate. 
They  could  both  nominate  and  elect  by  one  and  the  same  act. 
A  dozen  or  more  names  could  be  put  on  a  ballot,  and  the  one 
getting  the  most  first  choice  votes  would  be  elected;  or,  should 
no  one  get  a  quota  of  first  choice,  the  one  having  a  quota  of 
second  or  other  choice  votes,  as  before  stated.  The  voters  in 
a  party  of  any  size  could  place  any  reasonabl  e  number  of  names 
on  their  ballots,  and  the  most  popular  ones  would  be  elected, 
giving  the  party  its  full  proportion  of  representatives. 

In  the  "Report  on  the  Nomination  of  Overseers  of  Harvard 
College,"  made  May  10,  1872,  after  Mr.  Hare's  plan  had  been 
twice  tested  (viz.,  in  1870  and  1871)  we  find  the  following: 

The  System,  in  working,  fairly  fulfilled  Us  promise,  and  met  the  expectations 
of  its  friends.  The  first  year  there  were  about  360  ballots  received,  and 
each  name  finally  reported  by  the  committee  was  the  unanimous  choice  of 
one-tenth  of  that  constituency,  each  candidate  being  nominated  by  about 
thirty- six  votes. 

Many  of  the  ballots  were  sent  in  through  the  postoffice  by 
those  living  at  a  distance  from  Boston.  Quite  a  handy  way  to 
hold  a  convention!  No  chance  for  wire-pullers  to  operate  there; 
no  voter  takes  a  bribe  to  "  put  up  a  job  "  on  himself. 


WHAT   PARTY   POLITICS   HAS   DONE.  25 

That  election  by  quotas  will  check  corruption  is  evident  when 
we  consider  that  the  purchase  of  thousands  of  votes  will  change 
the  result  of  an  election  only  in  proportion  to  the  number  pur- 
chased. Suppose  the  quota  to  be  2,000;  the  purchase  of  that 
many  votes  will  only  elect  one,  who  even  then  may  be  said 
to  be  a  true  representative  of  such  quota;  all  those  who  cannot 
be  influenced  will  remain  unharmed. 


CHAPTEK    IV. 

REPORT   FROM   THE    SELECT   COMMITTEE    ON    REPRESENTATIVE    REFORM   IN 

THE    SENATE    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES THE    COMMITTEE'S     OBJECTIONS 

TO    THE    HARE   AND    ANDR.E  PLAN    ANSWERED — THE  METHOD  OF    ELECT- 
ING     CONGRESSMEN      PREVIOUS      TO     1842. TWO      IMPORTANT      CLAUSES 

FROM    THE    CONSTITUTION    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

What  has  prevented  the  adoption  of  this  simple,  sensible, 
just  and  civilized  method  of  voting  which  one  short  chapter  has 
sufficed  to  explain  ?  *  The  answer  is  short  and  its  truth  is  self- 
evident:  it  is  PARTY  POLITICS. 

At  this  point  it  will  be  proper  to  examine  a  certain  report 
•wherein  it  was  advised  to  postpone  the  adoption  of  said  plan. 
The  following  is  the  title  of  the  report  as  it  appears  in  the  Con- 
gressional Globe,  part  3,  and  Appendix,  3d  Session,  40th  Con- 
gress, 1868-9,  page  268: 

KEPEESENTATIYE  KEFOKM. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  SELECT  COMMITTEE  ON  REPRESENTATIVE  REFORM,  IN 
THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  MARCH  2,  1869. 

(To  accompany  bill  S.  No.  772.) 

*  The  three  exhibits  on  pages  15,  16  and  17,  together  with  the  paragraph 
on  page  18,  which  supposes  the  district  lines  to  be  abolished,  can  be  referred 
to  in  connection  with  the  explanation  of  the  system  given  in  Chapter  III. 


26  THE    BILL    THAT    A    BAD    CONGRESS   DEFEATED. 

The  following  is  the  title  and  text  of  the  bill  recommended 
"by  the  Committee : 

A   BILL    TO    AMEND    THE    REPRESENTATION    OF    THE    PEOPLE    IN    CONGRESS. 

Be  It  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  in  elections  for  the  choice  of  Repre- 
sentatives to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  whenever  more  than  one 
Representative  is  to  be  chosen  from  a  State,  each  elector  of  such  State,  duly 
qualified,  shall  be  entitled  to  a  number  of  votes  equal  to  the  number  of  Rep- 
resentatives to  be  chosen  from  the  State,  and  may  give  all  such  votes  to  one 
candidate,  or  may  distribute  them,  equally  or  unequally,  among  a  greater 
number  of  candidates;  and  the  candidates  highest  in  vote  upon  the  return 
shall  be  declared  elected. 

Mr.  Buckalew,  of  Pennsylvania,  had  introduced  the  bill  on 
January  13,  1869,  when  it  was  referred  to  a  Select  Committee 
consisting  of  Messrs.  Buckalew,  Anthony,  Ferry,  Morton,  War- 
ner, Rice  and  Wade. 

In  their  report,  the  Committee  gave  "four  great  reasons" 
•why  this  cumulative  plan,  which  they  called  "  the  unrestricted 
or  free  vote/'  should  be  adopted.  First — "  It  is  just."  Sec- 
ond— "It  will  check  corruption."  Third — "It  will  be  a  guar- 
antee of  peace."  Fourth — "It  will  improve  the  character  and 
ability  of  the  House."  Their  report  is  quite  lengthy,  occupying 
eleven  pages  of  the  Congressional  Globe.  Three  pages  of  it 
relate  to  a  change  in  the  method  of  electing  the  President  and 
Vice-President.  In  their  second  reason,  just  referred  to,  they 
recommend  that  the  Hare  and  Andrse  plan  be  "  put  aside  from 
the  present  discussion."  Seven  reasons  are  given  therefor, 
•which  are  set  forth  in  full  in  the  latter  part  of  the  following 
extract  from  their  report: 

"The  unrestricted  or  free  vote  will  greatly  check  corruption 
at  elections.  It  will  take  away  the  motive  to  corrupt,  and  thus 
strike  an  effectual  blow  at  the  source  of  a  great  evil.  Now, 
money  and  patronage  are  usually  expended  upon  elections  to 
secure  a  majority  or  plurality  vote  to  one  or  more  candidates 
over  one  or  more  other  candidates,  and  are  directed  or  applied 
to  the  comparatively  small  number  of  electors  in  the  constitu- 
ency who  hold  the  balance  of  power  between  parties.  Those 
persons  being  bought  or  seduced,  victory  is  secured.  The  im- 
portation of  voters  into  a  State  or  district,  or  their  fraudulent 
creation  within  it,  is  with  a  like  object.  And  such  corrupt 
influence  or  practice,  when  resorted  to  by  one  party,  provokes 


THE  COMMITTEE'S  SEVEN  OBJECTIONS.  27 

like  conduct  in  an  opposing  one,  until  both  become  tainted  with 
guilt  and  unfitted  for  vindicating  the  purity  of  elections.  This 
evil  grows  in  magnitude  yearly,  and  it  will  continue  to  increase 
until  those  motives  of  interest  which  provoke  it  shall  be  weak- 
ened or  destroyed.  A  new  right  to  the  elector,  whether  in  the 
form  of  the  free  or  cumulative  vote,  or  of  personal  representation, 
or  a  new  protection  to  him  in  the  form  of  .the  limited  vote,  will 
check  corruption;  but  of  these  remedies  the  first  is  the  most 
practicable  and  effectual.  The  limited  vote,  as  will  be  hereafter 
shown,  cannot  have  extensive  application,  and  it  is  but  a  rude 
contrivance. 

Personal  representation  is  a  scheme  of  great  theoretical  merit;  it 
has  been  tried  partially  in  Denmark,  and  it  has  received  elaborate 
vindication  from  authors  of  distinction  in  England,  in  Switzer- 
land and  in  France.  But  it  may  be  put  aside  from  the  present 
discussion,  because  it  is  comparatively  intricate  in  plan  and 
cumbrous  in  detail,  because  it  assails  party  organization,  and 
because  some  of  its  most  important  effects  cannot  be  distinctly 
foreseen. '  It  is  so  radical  in  character,  so  revolutionary  in  its 
probable  effects,  that  prudence  will  dictate  that  it  should  be 
very  deliberately  considered  and  subjected  to  local  experiment 
and  trial  before  it  shall  be  proposed  for  adoption  upon  a  grand 
scale  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States." 

Let  us  see  how  much  of  fact  and  logic  there  is  in  these  charges. 

First  charge:   "  Intricate  in  plan." 

Answer:  If  the  intricate  theory  is  not  rendered  harmless  by 
the  explanation  given  in  these  pages,  it  may  possibly  be  some- 
what weakened  by  a  comparison  with  the  intricacy  of  the  extract 
quoted  from  said  report,  which  to  fully  analyze  will  require  more 
space  than  has  been  taken  to  clearly  explain  the  system  they 
condemn.  Perhaps  the  testimony  of  a  reliable  expert  may 
weaken  it  still  more;  we  will  therefore  listen  to  the  learned 
mathematician  of  Denmark: 

"It  certainly  is  not  in  Denmark,  where  this  system  of  rep- 
resentation has  baen  seen  to  work  with  the  greatest  ease  for  the 
last  -fifteen  years,  that  you  will  hear  anything  said  of  its  com- 
plexity." This  is  Mr.  Andrae's  report  on  the  subject,  made  in 
1868.  In  1871  his  system  had  extended  to  elections  in  all  muni- 
"cipal  and  ecclesiastical  bodies. 


28  THE  COMMITTEE'S  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Query:  Are  the  Danes  any  better  qualified  to  manage  intricate 
machinery  than  we  are  ? 

Second  Charge:  "Cumbrous  in  detail." 

Answer:  "  Mr.  Hare  has  embodied  in  a  law,  containing  no 
more  than  about  thirty  clauses,  rules  which  are  to  supply  the 
place  of  all  the  existing  acts  of  Parliament  and  reported  cases 
relating  to  the  law  and  practice  of  elections,  that  occupy  vol- 
umes of  considerable  size,  together  with  all  the  unwritten  regu- 
lations of  party  management."  — [English  pamph- 
let entitled  Representative  Reform,  etc.,  etc. 

It  should  also  be  stated  that  a  considerable  portion  of  Mr. 
Hare's  "  Electoral  Law"  relates  especially  to  the  peculiarities  of 
the  present  regulations  in  England  to  which  he  sought  to  make 
his  system  apply,  but  which  would  not  have  to  be  provided  for 
in  this  country.  His  plan  is  now  embodied  in  twenty-eight  brief 
clauses. 

If,  however,  this  second  charge  could  be  sustained,  what 
would  it  amount  to  ?  There  is  an  amazingly  large  number  of 
cumbrous  and  intricate  contrivances — to  name  them  all  would 
fill  a  book — which  are,  nevertheless,  now  considered  indispen- 
sable in  a  civilized  country.  The  machinery  of  the  great  woolen 
mills  may  be  cited ;  also,  many  other  kinds. 

The  Postoffice  Department  is  quite  intricate  and  cumbrous; 
and  yet  we  hear  no  complaints  on  that  score;  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  thought  to  be  "a  very  handy  thing."  Its  cumbrous  nature 
does  not  seem  to  worry  the  people  in  the  least,  although  it  has 
to  be  kept  running  night  and  day  the  year  round;  whereas  this 
election  machine  is  to  be  used  only  one  day  in  the  whole  year, 
and  on  that  day,  even,  the  voters  would  not  be  troubled  with  its 
cumbrous  details  any  more  than  they  are  now  by  those  of  the 
Postoflfice. 

Our  common  school  system,  with  its  Directors,  Examining 
Committees  and  a  great  army  of  teachers;  with  its  books  of 
many  grades,  and  many  rules  and  problems;  with  its  buildings, 
so  numerous  that,  if  in  a  row,  they  would  reach  from  ocean  to 
ocean  in  almost  an  unbroken  line;  this  system,  compared  with 
which  the  cumbrous  detail  of  Mr.  Hare's  plan  is  but  a  grain  of 
sand — this  system  may  indeed  be  called  cumbrous,  and  yet  who, 
for  that  reason,  will  ask  that  it  be  put  aside  ? 

There  is  another  contrivance,  however,  or  rather  a  system  of 


THE  COMMITTEE'S  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  29 

contrivances,  that   surpasses  all  others,  because,  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  it  regulates  them  all :  it  is  government  itself. 

Behold  its  complex  and  cumbrous  parts!!  To  enumerate  and 
explain  them  requires  not  one  little  pamphlet,  nor  books  of  many 
volumes,  but  whole  libraries.  Compared  with  these,  and  espe- 
cially with  those  of  the  law,  how  insignificant  is  the  cumbrous 
nature  of  Mr.  Hare's  "  Electoral  Law,"  which  is  embodied  in 
28  brief  paragraphs. 

This  comparison  increases  in  interest  and  importance.  We 
cannot  stop  here.  We  must  know  what  this  law  will  do,  and 
what  it  will  cost  to  have  it  done — that  is,  after  it  shall  be 
adopted  as  law.  It  will  do  just  this:  It  will  make  a  "  governor" 
for  the  whole  of  the  complex  and  cumbrous  mechanism  of  gov- 
ernment itself;  a  governor,  through  which  "  The  People's 
Power"  can  operate  to  improve,  perfect,  regulate  and  control 
every  other  part  of  the  machinery  of  State.  It  will  do  it  com- 
pletely, because  it  will  enable  the  people  to  be  completely  rep- 
resented. Every  official  elected  by  the  people  would  be  the 
unanimous  choice  of  a  single  quota  of  voters.  This  "  governor" 
would  enable  the  people  to  control  the  whole.  It  therefore  fol- 
lows that  it  would  in  reality  become  the  FOUNDATION  of  govern- 
ment itself,  and  the  only  foundation  on  which  a  representative 
government  can  rest  in  security  and  peace. 

The  next  item  is  the  cost  of  running  it.  This  can  be  best  esti- 
mated by  considering  that  when  ballot-box  battles  cease  the 
greater  part  of  present  election  expenses  will  be  done  away  with. 

There  is  one  more  important  thing  to  consider,  and  that  is 
how  to  inaugurate,  how  to  create  this  one  simple  part  which  is  to 
regulate  the  whole.  This  will  be  considered  in  another  chapter. 

Certainly  a  machine  of  such  unequaled  importance  as  this, 
even  were  it  exceedingly  "cumbrous"  and  " intricate,"  ought 
not  to  be  condemned  without  stating  what  it  is  that  makes  it  so. 
On  this  important  point  the  Committee  is  "as  dumb  as  an  oys- 
ter." Thus  the  investigation  of  our  Committee's  second  charge 
results  in  the  discovery  that  the  Hare  and  Andrse  plan  is  no  more 
intricate  and  cumbrous  than  the  governor  of  a  steam  engine, 
which  is  more  simple  and  less  cumbrous  than  the  other  parts, 
all  of  which  it  regulates  and  controls. 

Mr.  Hare  has  given  the  world  some  very  valuable  advice,  as 
follows:  "  It  is  by  comparison  that  the  standard  of  excellence  is 


30  THE  COMMITTEE'S  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

raised."  We  will,  therefore,  follow  it  in  considering  the  Com- 
mittee's third  charge — namely:  "Because  it  assails  party  or- 
ganization." 

Answer — Instead  of  assailing  an  honest  party  organization,  it 
would  prevent  its  complete  defeat  by  an  opposite  party  in  case 
of  a  split  in  its  own,  created  perhaps  by  spies  or  influence  from 
the  enemy's  camp.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  organize  a  new 
party  now,  however  great  the  need  for  one  may  be,  unless  one 
of  the  old  ones  has  lost  its  hold  on  a  majority  of  its  supporters. 
Proportional  representation  will  make  the  rank  and  file  inde- 
pendent of  party  chiefs,  and  at  the  same  time  enable  them  to 
form  as  large  a  party  as  at  present.  The  difference  will  be 
that  they  can  disband  it  when  it  has  done  the  work  for  which  it 
had  been  called  into  being,  and  form  a  new  one  to  carry  on 
some  other  needed  improvement. 

The  rank  and  file  will  choose  their  party  chiefs,  but  will  not 
be  compelled  to  obey  orders,  nor  throw  their  votes  away  when 
they  disobey  and  set  up  an  independent  candidate.  They  will 
secure  a  better  class  of  leaders  than  they  can  possibly  get  now, 
and  at  the  same  time  their  officers  will  have  to  obey  orders; 
and  that  is  just  what  the  rank  and  file  want.  It  appears  that 
our  Committee  think  a  political  party  should  be  organized  on 
military  principles — the  privates  to  march  and  countermarch  at 
the  word  of  command,  fight  anything  and  everything  as  ordered, 
and  in  case  of  insubordination  (such,  for  example,  as  running  a 
ticket  of  their  own  choosing),  be  punished  by  being  compelled 
to  throw  away  their  votes  in  trying  to  elect  their  men. 

Such  party  organizations  as  we  have  witnessed  in  this  country 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  time  during  the  last  fifty  years  ought 
to  be  assailed  ;  and  if  the  present  mechanism  had  not  enslaved 
the  people,  they  would  have  been  assailed,  and  we  would  not 
now  be  in  distress  and  shouting  to  one  another  from  ocean  to 
ocean  for  help  to  avert  still  greater  calamities  which  threaten 
us.  Listen  to  the  present  anti-monopoly  "boom."  What  does 
it  mean?  But,  first,  what  does  it  profess  to  mean?  There  is 
but  one  opinion  on  this  point;  it  means  that  the  National  and 
the  State  governments  are  in  the  hands  of  the  wrong  men,  who 
cannot  be  removed  except  by  the  united  effort  of  an  immense 
army  of  voters.  This  army  must  be  like  a  military  organization, 
subject  to  the  orders  of  its  officers,  some  of  whom  may  be 


THE    GREAT   ANTI-MONOPOLY   PABTT   IN   DANGER.  31 

already  in  office,  and  others  trying  to  get  in.  We  will  suppose, 
however,  that  they  are,  without  exception,  tried,  true  and  capa- 
ble. Then,  if  there  happens  to  be  one  man  less  than  can  be 
brought  out  by  the  enemy — one  vote  less  than  a  majority — the 
efforts  of  the  great  Anti-Monopoly  army  will  be  as  worthless  as 
the  paper  in  the  ballots  they  will  throw  away.  If  its  officers 
and  privates  are  the  best  of  America's  sons,  and  the  opposition 
mainly  or  wholly  the  "  scum  of  society,"  it  will  be  the  same. 
For,  remember  it  is  not  honor,  nor  virtue,  nor  intellect,  nor 
justice,  that  is  to  decide  the  contest.  It  is,  perhaps,  one  single 
vote,  cast,  it  may  be,  by  the  most  infamous  thief  or  the  most 
noted  fool  in  the  nation.  We  will  suppose,  however,  that  this 
great  Anti-Monopoly  party  gathers  to  itself  an  invincible  host — 
an  unheard-of  majority.  Where,  then,  shall  we  look  for  the 
party  devils  and  all  other  kinds  of  deceivers,  who,  it  is  claimed, 
are  now  in  the  ranks  of  the  enemy  ?  Will  not  these,  or  others 
like  them,  be  sure  to  be  in  the  ranks  of  the  majority  party? 
And  by  the  aid  of  the  mechanism  that  has  heretofore  enabled 
them  to  thwart  the  people's  will,  can  they  not,  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree,  do  it  again  ?  It  has  already  been  shown  how.  by 
single  quotas,  proportional  representation  would  to  a  certainty 
accomplish  all  that  the  great  Anti-Monopoly  party  is  going  to 
try  to  do. 

The  way  proportional  representation  assaults  a  party  or- 
ganization is  this :  It  gives  the  people  liberty  to  assail  a  party 
that  is  about  to  enslave  them,  and  it  gives  them  also  a  weapon 
that  will  make  the  assault  victorious  every  time,  when  the  assail- 
ants are  in  the  majority.  And  pray  tell  us  if  a  majority  has  not 
a  right  to  assail?  This  kind  of  majority  rule  is  real,  while  the 
present  sham  frequently  renders  the  majority  as  helpless  as  a 
child.  (See  the  Slave  Pens.)  On  the  other  hand,  the  present 
system,  in  the  case  of  a  majority  of  one,  permits  a  single  man  to 
assault  a  whole  party  and  defeat  it. 

Thus  we  have  reduced  the  whole  sum  and  substance  of  charge 
No.  3  down  to  the  plain  and  simple  fact  that,  under  proportional 
representation,  an  attack  upon  a  party  organization  would  be 
harmless  unless  made  by  an  9verwhelming  force;  this  force  in 
all  probability  would  be  made  up  of  material  from  each  of  two 
or  more  great  parties  already  in  the  field,  who  might  still  retain 
the  same  relative  strength,  as  against  each  other,  that  they  had 


32  SOMETHING  HARD  TO  FORESEE. 

previously,  and  wield  all  the  power  they  would  be  justly  entitled 
to.  If  one  or  both  should  lose  enough  supporters  to  be  utterly 
routed  and  broken  up,  then  the  majority  would  rule  in  reality, 
and  the  fundamental  principle  of  republican  government  would 
NOT  be  nullified  and  set  aside. 

Fourth  Charge:  "  Some  of  its  most  important  effects  cannot 
be  distinctly  foreseen." 

Answer:  One  of  its  most  important  effects  would  be  to  give 
the  whole  people  a  voice  in  the  making  of  laws,  and  thus  enable 
them  to  regulate  their  own  affairs,  which  is  just  what  this  gov- 
ernment was  intended  for. 

This  fourth  charge  is  indeed  very  ambiguous  and  indefinite. 
It  specifies  nothing  in  particular,  but  admits  that  important  re- 
sults will  follow  in  the  wake  of  proportional  representation,  and 
furthermore,  that  some  of  the  more  important  ones  cannot  be 
distinctly  foreseen.  The  gentlemen  on  this  committee  must 
have  known  that  it  would  give  the  voters  their  liberty  at  least. 

They  did  not,  therefore,  mean  that  this  could  not  be  distinctly 
foreseen.  As  it  is  impossible  to  know  to  a  certainty  what  they 
had  in  mind,  we  may  infer  that  in  their  deliberations  they  had 
vainly  attempted  to  look  into  futurity  and  learn  the  unknowa- 
ble— namely,  the  wonderful  improvements  that  will  take  place 
on  this  earth  when  a  people  already  nominally  free  shall  possess 
a  mechanism  by  which  they  can  carry  into  effect  the  ideas  which 
now  they  can  only  talk  about.  We  are  compelled  to  surrender 
to  this  fourth  charge. 

Fifth  Charge:     "It  is  so  radical  in  character." 
Answer:    It  is  no  more  radical  than  it  should  be  to  give  the 
voters  their  full  liberty.     Freedom  is  very  apt  to  be  a  little  radi- 
cal, especially  when  compared  with  slavery.     Hare's  plan  is  no 
more  radical  than  the  present  system.     The  latter  is  radically 
wrong,  or  just  as  bad   as.it  is  possible  to   have.     Mr.  Hare's 
is  radically  right — that  is,  just  as  good  as  it  is  possible  to  have. 
Sixth  Charge:     "Revolutionary  in  its  probable  effects." 
Answer:     President  G-arfield  has  said  that  a  "  large  portion 
of  the  people  are  permanently  disfranchised."     Other  testimony 
declares  that  the  fundamental  principle  of   our  government  has 
been  nullified,  defeated,  and  set  aside  by  our  present  method  of 
voting.     Both  of  these  statements  are  supported  by  indisputable 
facts.     Therefore,  is  not  something  revolutionary  just  the  thing 


MATHEMATICS    IS   THE    SAME   IN    ALL   COUNTRIES.  33 

we  want?  If  the  fundamental  principle  of  this  government  has 
been  nullified  and  set  aside  by  a  counterfeit  ballot,  which  it  has 
been,  how,  except  by  a  revolution  that  will  give  us  a  genuine 
ballot,  can  it  be  reorganized  ?  The  present  ballot  has  put  an 
end  to  the  majority  rule,  and  rendered  the  people  powerless  to 
act  except  as  ordered.  If  they  are  not  to  be  given  a  real  ballot, 
one  with  which  they  can  effect  a  peaceful  revolution,  will  they 
not  be  justified  in  using  force,  as  did  the  men  of  '76  ? 

Seventh  Charge:  "  Prudence  will  dictate  that  it  should  be  very 
deliberately  considered  and  subjected  to  local  experiment  and 
trial  before  it  shall  be  proposed  for  adoption  upon  a  grand  scale 
Jby  the  Government  of  the  United  States." 

Really,  this  whole  file  of  charges  reads  very  smoothly,  and  I 
doubt  not  many  a  poor  fellow  who  had  been  repeatedly  ' '  sold  " 
by  one  of  two  great  parties,  and  probably  by  both,  considered 
himself  uncommonly  lucky  in  having  such  watchful  sentinels  to 
guard  him  against  the  calamities  pictured  in  this  report.  It  has 
been  shown,  however,  that  up  to  this  point  there  was  no  real 
danger.  It  now  remains  to  show  that  this  seventh  and  last 
charge  has  nothing  in  it,  except  that,  in  connection  with  the 
others,  it  might  be  made  to  point  a  moral — perhaps.  Mr.  An- 
drse,  our  witness  against  the  first  charge,  has  shown  that  it  had 
been  on  trial  sixteen  years  when  the  Committee  made  their  re- 
port. 

It  seems  from  their  report  they  knew  something  of  the  system. 
There  is  no  good  reason  why  they  should  not  have  known  all 
about  it,  and  yet  they  said,  "  It  should  be  subjected  to  local  ex- 
periment and  trial."  The  general  trial  given  it  in  Denmark  cer- 
tainly gave  it  as  severe  a  test  as  anything  on  a  smaller  scale 
could  give  it  in  this  country.  In  fact,  these  grave  Senators 
seem  to  have  forgotten  that  there  can  be  no  uncertainty  about 
solving  a  simple  problem  by  the  aid  of  mathematics,  after  it  has 
been  settled  that  it  can  be  relied  on  to  obtain  a  true  solution  of 
a  more  difficult  problem  of  the  same  kind  or  class;  and  propor- 
tional representation  is  nothing  more  than'  a  mathematical  prob- 
lem— mathematics  is  its  foundation,  the  application  of  which  to 
elective  mechanism  would  result  in  justice,  in  freedom  to  the 
voter,  and  finally  would  produce  those  "  important  effects," 
"  some  "  of  which,  it  must  be  admitted,  "  cannot  be  distinctly 
foreseen." 


34  THE    SENATE   COMMITTEE    SUPPORT    OUR   CHARGES. 

In  submitting  the  foregoing  criticism  to  the  public,  it  will  be 
proper  to  call  special  attention  to  another  portion  of  the  com- 
mittee's report,  wherein  they  claim  that  the  cumulative  vote 
would  be  a  guarantee  of  peace.  It  will  be  found  in  the  chapter 
on  "  Ballot-Box  Battles."  It  is  a  sound  opinion,  because  it  is 
supported  by  well-known  facts,  while  the  charges  we  have  criti- 
cised are  not  thus  supported.  I  must,  however,  thank  the  Com- 
mittee for  their  report  as  a  whole.  In  their  second  reason  they 
admit  and  state  in  plain  terms  that  the  ballot-box  majority  is  a 
source  of  corruption.  In  another  part  of  their  report  the  dis- 
trict system  is  shown  to  be  a  fountain  of  evil  also.  In  describing 
the  imperfections  of  former  plans,  and  the  present  one  of  elect- 
ing by  single  districts,  the  report  refers  to  the  latter  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms: 

It  has  not  secured  fair  representation  of  political  interests,  and  it  has  con- 
tinued in  existence,  in  a  somewhat  mitigated  form,  the  evils  of  the  plan  of 
election  by  general  ticket,  which  it  superseded.  Still  one  body  of  organized 
electors  in  a  district  vote  down  another;  electoral  corruption  is  not  effectually 
cnecked  and  the  general  result  is  unfair  representation  of  political  interests  in 
the  popular  house  of  Congress.  Besides,  the  single  district  plan  has  called  into 
existence  inconveniences  peculiar  to  itself,  and  which  did  not  attach  to  the 
former  plan.  It  excludes  from  Congress  men  of  ability  and  merit,  whose 
election  was  possible  before,  and  thus  exerts  a  baneful  influence  upon  the 
constitution  of  the  House.  Two  causes  operate  to  this  end:  In  the  first 
place,  no  man  who  adheres  to  a  minority  in  any  particular  district  can  be 
returned,  and  next,  great  rapidity  of  change  is  produced  by  fluctuation  of 
party  power  in  the  districts.  Again,  the  single  district  system  gives  rise  to 
gerrymandering  in  the  States  in  the  formation  of  districts.  Single  districts 
will  almost  always  be  unfairly  made.  They  will  be  formed  in  the  interest  of 
party,  and  to  secure  an  unjust  measure  of  power  to  their  authors,  and  it  may 
be  expected  that  each  successive  district  apportionment  will  be  more  unjust 
than  its  predecessor.  Parties  will  retaliate  upon  each  other  whenever  pos- 
sible. The  disfranchisement  suffered  through  one  decade  by.  a  political  party 
may  be  repeated  upon  it  in  the  next  with  increased  severity;  but  if  it  shall 
happen  to  have  power  in  the  Legislature  when  the  new  apportionment  for 
the  State  is  to  be  made,  it  will  take  signal  vengeance  for  its  wrongs,  and  in 
its  turn  indulge  in  the  luxury  of  persecution  . 

To  prevent  any  misunderstanding,  it  may  be  well  to  state  here 
that  the  bill  which  this  Committee  has  recommended  proposes  to 
abolish  all  district  lines;  the  State  will  be  one  district,  the  elec- 
tor voting  at  any  place  where  he  may  happen  to  be  on  election 
day.  It  differs  in  this  respect  from  the  cumulative  vote,  as  gen- 
erally understood  and  as  applied  to  elections  for  State  legisla- 
tors—as, for  example,  in  Illinois;  there  the  State  is  divided  into 
districts,  each  of  which  sends  three  representatives  to  the  State 
Legislature,  that  is,  to  the  lower  house.  The  report  of  our  Com- 


CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    UNITED    STATES.  85 

mittee  refers  only  to  the  choice  of  Congressmen,  as  before 
stated. 

It  may  be  quite  interesting  to  many  to  know  in  what  manner 
Representatives  to  Congress  were  chosen  previous  to  1842,  at 
which  time,  viz.,  on  the  25th  of  June  in  that  year,  Congress 
passed  a  law  compelling  them  to  be  elected  by  single  districts, 
as  at  present.  Previous  to  that  time,  it  was  left  to  the  States  to 
choose  them  in  any  way  they  saw  fit.  The  result  was  that  in 
some  States  they  were  elected  by  the  district  plan,  either  one  or 
more  from  a  district;  the  districts  were  of  different  dimensions, 
even  in  the  same  State;  some  were  single,  and  some  sent  two, 
three  and  even  four  Representatives  to  Congress.  Other  States 
elected  their  Congressmen  "at  large."  In  early  days  many  of 
the  States  did  this:  but  it  became  so  unsatisfactory  that  at  the 
time  Congress  took  action  in  the  matter,  the  mixed  district 
system,  of  one  or  more  Representatives  from  each  district,  pre- 
vailed more  generally  than  at  an  earlier  date.  The  result  of 
voting  at  large,  with  the  ballot-box  majority  attachment,  was, 
the  majority  party,  or,  in  case  of  three  parties,  the  plurality 
party,  elected  every  member  of  Congress  in  a  State.  Congress, 
therefore,  to  remedy  this  evil,  as  well  as  that  of  irregular  dis- 
tricts, enacted  that  each  and  every  State  should  be  divided  into 
single  congressional  districts  (or  Slave  Pens).  At  that  time  the 
mathematical  problem  of  how  to  elect  by  single  quotas  had  not 
been  solved.  The  single  district  plan  was  thought  to  be,  and  in 
fact  was,  an  improvement  on  previous  methods,  or  at  least  on 
that  of  electing  at  large.  But  it  finally  gave  rise  to  new  evils, 
as  stated  in  the  report  of  the  Committee.  The  object  of  chang- 
ing to  the  single  district  plan  was  to  carry  out  the  intent  of  the 
founders  of  this  Government,  as  declared  in  the  Constitution, 
the  purport  and  intent  of  which  is  that  ' '  the  people  "  shall  rule 
themselves  by  laws  in  the  making  of  which  all  shall  participate. 

If  there  be  any  who  dispute  the  soundness  of  this  "  opinion," 
they  are  referred  to  Article  I,  Section  2,  of  the  Constitution,  to 
wit: 

The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members  chosen  every 
second  year  by  THE  PEOPLE  of  the  several  States, 

It  does  not  say  that  one  part  of  the  people  shall  be  repre- 
sented in  Congress,  and  another  part  have  no  opportunity  to  be 
represented;  and  that  it  was  intended  as  far  as  possible  to  pre- 


36  WHAT   HAVE    WE   LEFT? 

vent  such  an  occurrence  is  shown  by  Section  4  of  Article  1,  which 
provides  for  a  change  in  the  elective  mechanism,  as  follows: 

The  times,  places  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  Senators  and  Kep- 
resentatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  the  State  by  the  Legislature  thereof;  but 
the  Congress  may  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except 
as  to  the  places  of  choosing  Senators. 

In  accordance  with  this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  Con- 
gress, in  1842,  enacted  that  Representatives  should  be  chosen 
by  single  districts.  By  this  they  recognized  the  fact  that  "the  peo- 
ple" were  not  represented  as  the  Constitution,  in  Article  1,  Section 
2,  declares  they  shall  be. 

As  no  better  way  had  yet  been  invented,  it  was  thought  that 
by  choosing  them  by  the  single  district  plan,  a  less  number  of 
the  people  would  be  disfranchised.  Party  politics  at  that  time 
had  not  so  fully  demonstrated  as  it  since  has  that  all  are  dis- 
franchised. The  result  has  been  that  it  has  enfranchised  par- 
ties to  some  extent,  by  giving  each  of  two  or  more  a  better  chance 
to  get  a  share  of  the  Representatives,  but  it  has  left  the  voters 
as  poorly  provided  for  as  before.  The  next  thing  in  order,  there- 
fore, is  to  free  the  voters  from  party  control,  and  place  parties 
under  the  control  of  the  voters,  where  they  belong.  This  can 
only  be  done  by  giving  the  voters  their  full  liberty,  and  this  they 
cannot  have  while  they  use  a  mechanism  that  enslaves  them,  as 
the  present  ballot  does. 

The  evidence  in  this  and  previous  chapters  proves  beyond  all 
question  that  the  present  mechanism  makes  it  impossible  for  the 
people  to  make  their  own  laws,  and  that  the  very  foundation  of 
their  government  is  therefore  destroyed.  What  have  they  left? 
Nothing,  except  that  inalienable  right,  belonging  to  all  man- 
kind, which  permits  a  people  to  create  a  mechanism  that  will 
enable  them  to  execute  their  will.  In  such  an  emergency,  the 
People's  Power  is  the  only  agency  that  can  be  of  service.  It  be- 
comes for  that  purpose  the  natural  builder  of  a  machine,  which, 
if  rightly  constructed,  will  ever  after  economize  that  power,  by 
creating  improvements  in  every  other  branch  of  governmental 
mechanism.  How  to  set  this  power  to  work  to  build  it  is  the 
question,  and  this  will  be  considered  in  another  chapter. 

The  defeat  of  the  bill  recommended  by  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee, together  with  the  neglect  since  that  time  to  provide  any 
relief,  is  in  itself  proof  enough  that  Congress  does  not  repre- 


THE  QUESTION  THAT  NATURALLY  FOLLOWS.  37 

sent  the  people;  besides,  the  facts  heretofore  given  bar  all  fur- 
ther controversy  on  that  point.  The  question  that  naturally 
follows  is,  what  warrrant  of  law  is  there  in  this  country  to  com- 
pel people  to  obey  laws  which  they  have  had  no  hand  in  mak- 
ing? Or,  if  immediate  resistance  is  not  advisable,  how  long 
must  they  continue  to  obey  laws  in  the  making  of  which  they 
can  take  no  part? 


CHAPTER    V. 

OTHER    PLANS,    TRIED   AND   UNTRIED — PROPORTIONAL    OR    TOTALITY,    AND 
NOT    MINORITY    REPRESENTATION,    IS    REQUIRED. 


THE    CUMULATIVE   VOTE. 

In  Illinois,  representatives  to  the  lower  house  of  the  Legisla- 
ture are  elected  by  the  Cumulative  Vote.  As  it  is  a  decided  im- 
provement on  the  old  plan,  it  deserves  some  notice.  I  shall, 
however,  merely  point  out  some  of  its  defects,  hoping  thereby 
to  assist  in  preventing  its  introduction  into  other  States  to  the 
exclusion  of  plans  which  are  so  greatly  its  superior.  It  proposes 
to  give  the  voter  as  many  votes  as  there  are  candidates  to  be 
elected  in  a  district,  and  permits  him  to  give  them  all  to  one 
candidate,  or  give  one  to  each,  as  in  the  old  way,  or  to  divide 
them  among  the  candidates  in  any  proportion  he  may  see  fit. 
The  objections  to  this  are:  First,  it  does  not  necessarily  abolish 
the  district  system;  second,  where,  for  example,  three  are  to  be 
chosen  in  a  district,  as  in  Illinois,  the  smaller  party  must  com- 
prise at  least  a  third  of  all  the  voters;  third,  if  more  votes  are 
given  for  a  candidate  than  are  required  to  elect  him,  the  surplus 
are  wasted,  and  if  too  few,  they  are  all  thrown  away.  A  minor- 
ity of  less  than  one-third  might  thus  be  defeated  in  every  dis- 
trict in  a  State,  although  they  would  be  entitled  to  a  number  of 
representatives  if  voting  under  the  proportional  plan,  which  per- 
mits the  union  of  such  numbers  (see  either  of  the  three  exhibits 

^X^VBRTjJ^x^ 

f  "OF  THB  \ 

(UNIVERSITY  J 


38  THE  CUMULATIVE  VOTE  WILL  NOT  DO. 

in  Chapter  2).  Any  system  that  does  not  permit  parts  of  quotas 
to  consolidate,  and  that  does  not  leave  every  single  quota  of  vot- 
ers absolutely  free  from  party  power,  is  too  weak  to  prevent  such 
power  from  thwarting  the  people's  will.  The  "  majority  "  of  the 
voters  in  either  party  will  be  under  the  control  of  that  power, 
and  a  minority  of  one-third  will  still  require  more  or  less  of 
party  discipline  to  insure  its  success;  that  is,  it  will  require  a 
regular  party  organization  to  determine  beforehand  how  many 
votes  will  be  required  to  elect  a  candidate.  That  organization 
must  have  leaders,  and  the  leaders  will  do  as  they  do  now;  that 
is,  as  they  please,  and  not  as  the  voters  please.  If  the  party 
managers  have  nothing  worse  to  fear  than  a  system  that  only  de- 
stroys in  part,  or  even  wholly,  their  power  over  minorities, while 
it  leaves  majorities  subject  to  their  control,  they  can  well  afford 
to  see  the  minority  "  cumulate"  their  votes  and  elect  their  man 
every  time.  The  men  thus  elected  would  frequently  be  expedi- 
ency or  compromise  candidates;  no  matter  how  small  the  party, 
a  convention  would  be  indispensable,  and  the  voters  would  all 
be  obliged  to  vote  "  the  ticket;"  there  might  be  enough  dissatis- 
fied voters  in  the  whole  State  to  form  several  independent  quo- 
tas, but  they  would  be  helpless.  The  Cumulative  Vote  was 
supported  by  John  Stuart  Mill  before  the  invention  of  the  Hare 
and  Andrae  plan;  but,  after  comparing  it  with  the  latter,  he 
pronounced  it  a  mere  "  makeshift."  Under  the  Cumulative  Vote 
both  the  ballot-box  majority  and  the  district  system  may  exert 
their  baneful  influence,  though  not  to  the  same  extent  as  now. 
These  two  evils  will,  however,  retain  enough  influence  to  enable 
party  managers  at  times,  if  not  in  every  instance,  to  prevent  the 
people  from  carrying  out  their  plans.  The  mere  representation 
of  minorities  is  not  the  most  important  thing  to  be  secured.  If 
majorities  cannot  execute  their  will  while  under  party  discipline, 
bow  much  better  off  will  the  people  be  when  they  are  all  repre- 
sented, but  subject  to  the  same  discipline?  Party  power,  "  as 
now  organized  and  administered,"  not  only  prevents  the  people 
in  most  cases  from  electing  men  of  their  choice,  but  it  exerts  a 
dangerous  and  often  a  fatal  influence  on  those  whom,  at  times, 
they  may  be  able  to  elect  in  apite  of  party  intrigue.  We  must 
have  a  system  that  will  not  only  permit  the  whole  people  to  be 
represented,  but  one  that  will  also  enable  them  to  protect  their 
representatives  from  the  present  influence  of  party  power.  What 


HOW    LONG   IS   THIS    TO    LAST?  39 

good  does  it  do  to  elect  a  man,  and  have  him  set  upon  by  a  party 
caucus  and  compelled  to  support  its  policy,  or,  in  case  of  refusal, 
be  slandered,  or  else  tripped  up  every  time  he  attempts  to  do 
anything  he  was  elected  to  do  ? 

When  every  representative  is  the  independent  agent  of  a  single 
quota  of  voters,  no  one  representative,  elected  by  a  few  to  advo- 
cate a  single  idea  or  to  champion  a  policy  different  from  that  of 
the  majority,  can  be  made  to  fear  the  party  lash;  neither  will  the 
individual  representatives  composing  the  majority  dare  to  un- 
justly thwart  him,  since  they  would  not  have  such  a.  party  organ- 
ization to  shield  them  as  they  now  have.  They  would  be  answer- 
able for  their  conduct  in  the  matter  each  to  a  single  quota,  and 
this  quota  would  be  free  from  the  corrupting  expediencies  of  a 
great  p&rty  as  now  organized. 

The  Cumulative  Vote  is  only  a  plan  for  the  more  perfect  rep- 
resentation of  parties.  But  we  have  seen  (page  9)  that  of  1,801 
laws  not  ten  were  of  a  party  nature;  therefore,  the  voters  are  not 
represented  by  giving  each  of  two  or  more  great  parties  a  just  or 
proportionate  share  of  the  representatives.  It  is  persons  that 
we  want  represented,  but  this  can  never  be  until  they  are  free 
from  party  power,  and  the  Cumulative  Vote  will  not  set  them 
free.  [See  chapter  on  Party  Politics  for  other  remarks  about 
parties.] 

THE   FREE    LIST. 

This  is  a  plan  first  made  prominent  in  1865  by  the  Keform 
Association  of  Geneva,  Switzerland.  It  has  been  established, 
however,  that  Thomas  Gilpin,  of  Philadelphia,  brought  out  the 
same  plan  as  early  as  1844.  Copies  of  his  pamphlet  on  the 
subject  are  very  rare;  the  only  one  said  to  be  in  any  library  is 
in  that  of  Harvard  College.  Neither  Mr.  Gilpin's  nor  any 
other  idea  can  be  made  prominent  unless  enough  persons  join  in 
the  work.  The  "  party  machine  "  has  such  kingly  power  in  this 
country  that  all  knowledge  injurious  to  its  "  majesty  "  is  some- 
how made  to  shine  very  dimly.  How  long  is  this  to  last? 

'*  By  the  Free  List  plan,  a  list  of  candidates  may  be  made  out 
by  any  number  of  persons  equal  to  a  quota  or  more.  This 
list  is  to  be  deposited  with  the  Registrar  or  other  officer,  who 
will  number  and  publish  the  same.  Each  elector  has  one  vote, 


40  THE    GENETA   FREE   LIST. 

and  casts  it  for  such  list  as  he  may  select,  indicating  his  prefer- 
ence for  the  candidates  thereon.  The  total  number  of  votes  cast 
by  all  the  different  lists  is  divided  by  the  number  to  be  elected, 
to  obtain  the  .quota,  or  quotient  electoral.  Then,  by  dividing 
the  number  of  votes  cast  for  any  list  by  the  quotient,  the  num- 
ber of  candidates  on  that  list  who  are  elected  is  ascertained.  If 
we  suppose  there  are  twelve  representatives  to  be  chosen,  and 
12,000  votes  cast,  the  quotient  electoral,  or  quota,  is  1,000,  and 
the  election,  if  there  be  four  parties  in  the  field,  may  result 
about  thus: 

List  No.  1,  receiving  5,000  votes,  secures  5. 
List  NO.  2,  receiving  4,000  votes,  secures  4. 
List  No.  3,  receiving  2,000  votes,  secures  2. 
List  No.  4,  receiving  1,000  votes,  secures  1. 
"  Thus  any  able  man  who  has  a  quota  of  friends  is  sure  of 
an  election.     This  system  is  perfectly  simple  in  theory  and  in 
fact,  so  as  to  be  easily  understood  and  easily  put   in   practice. 
As  first  proposed,  the  list  vote  made  no  provisions  for  the  indi- 
cation by  each  elector  of  his  preferences  among  the  candidates 
named  on  his  ballot,  the  rule  being  that  if  List  No.  2,  for  in- 
stance, receives  three  quotas  of  votes,  the  first  three  candidates 
therein  were  to  be  elected;  hence,  when  it  was  afterwards  pro- 
posed, in  1870,  that  each  elector  should  indicate  his  preference, 
it  was  treated  as  a  distinct  method,  and  called  the  vote  by  per- 
sonal representation,  or  quotient  electoral. 

"  This  distinction  is  no  longer  maintained.  The  List  Vote  in 
its  present  form  allows  the  voter  to  indicate  the  order  of  his 
preference  among  the  candidates  on  the  list  which  he  votes 
for."—Dutcher. 

To  apply  this  system,  Mr.  S.  D.  Horton,  of  Cincinnati,  gives, 
among  others,  the  following  rules:  "The  offices  allotted  to  a 
ticket  (or  party  list)  shall  be  filled  by  certain  candidates  on  the 
ticket  (or  list)  according  to  the  preference  of  the  voters  thereon. 
The  candidate  who  is  first  choice  of  the  greatest  number  of 
voters  shall  have  the  first  place  on  the  final  list;  if  only  one 
oflice  is  allotted  to  the  ticket  (or  party),  such  candidate  is  elect- 
ed. That  one  among  the  remaining  candidates,  who,  on  the 
greatest  number  of  ballots,  stands  either  first  or  second  in  the 
order  of  preference,  shall  have  the  second  place  on  the  final 
list;  if  the  ticket  elects  two,  he  also  is  elected.  That  one  of  the 


THE   FREE   LIST    PLAN    COMPARED    WITH    HARE'S.  41 

remaining  candidates,  who,  on  the  greatest  number  of  ballots, 
stands  either  first,  second  or  third,  shall  have  the  third  place; 
if  the  ticket  elects  three,  he  also  is  elected.  And  so  on."  A 
list  may  contain  the  name  of  one  candidate  only,  or  as  many  as 
there  are  legislators  to  elect,  or  any  number  intermediate.  The 
"Free  List"  is  applicable  to  the  choice  of  executive  officers, 
from  the  President  down,  in  which  case  the  highest  candidate 
on  the  highest  list  would  be  elected. 

The  Free  List  plan  has  not  yet  been  put  in  practice  in  Swit- 
zerland. The  probable  reason  why  it  has  not  is  this:  All 
important  legislation  has  to  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple before  it  becomes  law.  This  they  call  the  ^Referendum 
They  evidently  thought  this  would  counteract  effectually  the 
evils  of  the  old  method  of  voting.  Besides,  in  one  of  the  larg- 
est cantons,  Zurich,  the  people  make  their  own  laws  indepen- 
dent of  the  Legislature.  It  is  said,  however,  that  the  Eeferen- 
dum  has  not  thus  far  proven  a  sufficient  corrective  for  all  the 
evils  of  a  legislative  body  chosen  in  the  old  way.  It  is  not 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  can  be  a  cure-all.  We  may  there- 
fore predict  the  adoption  in  Switzerland  of  either  the  Free  List 
or  the  Hare  plan  as  the  next  improvement  in  their  machinery  of 
State.  By  this  plan  the  list  of  candidates  has  to  be  made  up  by 
a  party,  or  by  a  single  quota,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  published 
in  advance  of  the  election.  The  voter  casts  his  ballot  for  the 
names  on  a  particular  list,  and  for  no  others.  He  can  erase, 
but  cannot  add  new  names.  The  candidates  are  all  known 
previous  to  the  election,  whereas  by  the  Hare  method  it  is  not 
absolutely  necessary.  Both  plans  permit  an  indefinite  number 
of  candidates  to  be  nominated  without  imperiling  the  success  of 
their  party.  "In  the  cumulative  plan,  if  either  too  many  or  too 
few  names  are  put  forward,  a  great  waste  of  strength  must 
occur,  and  carefully  prepared  ballots  become  a  necessity." 

Although  the  Free  List  is  not  so  perfect  in  theory  as  the  Hare 
and  Andrte  plan,  it  has  been  claimed  for  it  that,  in  practice,  it 
would  secure  about  the  same  results.  As  it  would  destroy  the 
present  party  bondage,  it  would  have  an  indirect  tendency  to  do 
so  in  time. 

HOW   TO   CHOOSE   A    GOVERNOR. 

Mr.  George  B.  Wright,  of  Minneapolis,  Minnesota,  gives  in 
his  plan,  which  he  calls  the  "  Preference  Vote,"  the  following." 


42  HOW   TO    ELECT   A   GOVERNOR. 

"  In  an  election  for  Governor  where  there  are  only  two  candi- 
dates, if  the  majority  win,  it  is  as  near  the  will  of  the  people  as 
we  can  get  in  such  cases.  But  suppose  one  party  has  12,000 
and  the  other  party  9,000  voters,  and  the  majority  party  disagree 
as  to  its  candidate  and  divide  in  nearly  equal  parts,  the  majority 
under  our  present  system  would  be  defeated  by  a  united  minor- 
ity. Say  the  candidates  of  the  majority  are  A  and  B,  of  the 
minority  X.  Now  the  most  popular  of  the  majority  party's  can 
didates  will  be  chosen.  After  the  election  the  vote  stands  as 
follows : 

Majority  Party— A  (1st  choice),  B  (2d  choice) 7,400 

"  «     —B  (1st  choice),  A  (2d  choice) 4,600 


Total 12,000 


Minority  Party,  X 9,000 


Total  Vote 21,000 

A  majority  of  which  is  10,501. 
The  returns  are  thus : 

NAMES.  TOTALS. 

A Votes  1st  choice,  7,400;    2d  choice,  4,600 12,000 

B "          "  4,600;          "          7,400 12,000 

X "          "  9,000;  9,000 

"  A  and  B  each  receive  12,000  votes.  A  has  the  greater  num- 
ber as  first  choice  and  is  elected  over  X,  as  his  total  votes  exceed 
those  cast  for  X,  and  over  B,  as  he  is  first  choice  on  more  bal- 
lots than  B. 

"  It  is  here  shown  that  the  nomination  need  not  be  made  by  a 
party.  It  can  leave  the  voters  free  to  vote  for  whomsoever  they 
choose,  and  not  lose  the  right  of  a  majority  to  elect  its  candi- 
date. The  result  would  be  the  same,  however  great  the  number 
of  candidates  may  be  in  either  party.  Let  the  totals  of  both 
first  and  second  choice  decide  as  between  the  parties,  while  the 
first  choices  decide  as  between  candidates.  The  party  at  one 
time  both  nominates  and  elects  its  candidate,  and  thus  party 
caucuses  and  conventions  are  rendered  useless,  and  the  sources 
of  one-half  our  political  corruption  cut  off." 

THE   KEY   TO   FREEDOM. 

Various  modifications  of  all  the  foregoing  plans  have  been 
from  time  to  time  proposed.  What  I  wish  to  give  the  reader  is, 


THE    KEY    TO    FREEDOM.  43 

the  key  to  freedom  in  the  matter  of  choosing  his  representative. 
It  is  this:  In  all  cases,  where  more  than  one  is  to  be  chosen, 
divide  the  whole  number  of  votes  cast  by  the  number  of  officials 
to  be  elected,  and  the  quotient  is  the  number  of  votes  required 
to  elect  one.  Therefore,  a  mechanism  must  be  had  that  will  to 
a  certainty  enable  every  such  number  to  elect  whom  they  please. 
There  has  been  no  way  discovered,  nor  can  there  be,  to  secure 
this,  except  by  abolishing  compulsory  district  lines  and  the 
majority  at  the  ballot-box.  If,  for  instance,  ten  hundred  voters 
are  to  elect  ten  representatives  for  any  purpose  whatever,  then 
each  and  every  one  hundred  of  them  will  be  entitled  to  one. 
By  referring  to  any  one  of  the  three  slave-pens,  or  exhibits,  in 
Chapter  II,  and  supposing  the  district  lines  to  be  removed,  the 
reader  will  see  at  a  glance  the  justice  of  the  principle  on  which 
this  plan  is  based.  It  is  as  simple  as  buying  a  pound  of  sugar. 
"  It  is  on  the  principle  that  when  one  dollar  will  buy  ten  pounds 
of  sugar,  any  one  offering  forty  cents  should  get  four  pounds, 
and  not  be  told  he  can  have  none,  not  even  one  pound,  because 
some  other  party  has  the  most  money."  In  other  words,  pro- 
portional representation  means  that  equal  numbers  should  be 
equally  represented.  "  The  essence  of  democracy  is  equality. 
*  *  *  Where  there  is  no  equality  of  representation  there  is 
no  democraqy." — M.  Louix  Blanc. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

BALLOT- BOX    BATTLES — WHAT   WILL   HAPPEN   WHEN    THEY    CEASE PARTY 

POLITICS. 

"  A  political  contest  is  a  struggle,  not  for  a  fair  share  of  the 
representation,  bub  for  the  whole.  *  *  *  It  is  a  war  with- 
out quarter,  and  it  is  a  contest  in  which  the  sacrifices  of  the 
victorious  are  hardly  less  serious  than  the  losses  of  the  defeated 
party.  Everything  has  to  be  yielded  for  the  sake  of  victory, 
and,  as  eligibility  becomes  necessarily  the  prime  quality  in  a 


44  OUR   CIVIL   WAR   MIGHT   NOT   HAVE   BEEN. 

candidate,  it  naturally  follows  that  men  of  mark  give  place  to 
men  of  no  mark,  and  the  representative  assembly  comes  to  be 
composed,  for  the  most  part,  of  second-rate  men,  mere  standard- 
bearers  in  party  warfare,  hardly  better  known  or  more  accepta- 
ble to  the  men  who  voted  for  them  than  to  their  opponents." 

In  contrast  with  the  above,  which  is  taken  from  the  American 
Law  Review  for  January,  1872,  Vol.  VI,  I  submit  the  following 
from  the  "  Keport  of  the  United  States  Senate  Committee." 
This  Committee,  as  stated  in  a  previous  chapter,  recommended 
the  cumulative  vote,  and  among  other  reasons  said:  "  It  will  be 
a  guarantee  of  peace,  because  it  will  exclude  many  causes  of 
discord  and  complaint,  and  will  secure  to  the  friends  of  peace 
and  union  a  just  measure  of  political  power.  The  absence  of 
this  vote  in  the  States  of  the  South,  when  rebellion  was  plotted, 
and  when  open  steps  were  taken  to  break  the  Union,  was  unfor- 
tunate, for  it  would  have  held  the  Union  men  of  those  States 
together,  and  have  given  them  voice  in  the  Electoral  Colleges 
and  in  Congress.  But  they  were  fearfully  overborne  by  the 
plurality  rule  of  elections,  and  were  swept  forward  by  the 
course  of  events  into  irnpotency  or  open  hostility  to  our  cause. 
By  that  rule  they  were  largely  deprived  of  representation  in 
Congress.  By  that  rule  they  were  shut  out  of  tlje  Electoral 
Colleges.  Dispersed,  unorganized,  unrepresented,  without  due 
voice  and  power,  they  could  interpose  no  effectual  resistance  to 
secession  and  to  civil  war.  Their  leaders  were  struck  down  at 
unjust  elections,  and  could  not  speak  or  act  for  them  in  their 
own  States  or  at  the  capital  of  the  nation. 

"By  facts  well  known  to  us  we  are  assured  that  the  leaders  of 
revolt,  with  much  difficulty,  carried  their  States  with  them. 
Even  in  Georgia,  the  Empire  State  of  the  South,  the  scale  was 
almost  balanced  for  a  time,  and  in  most  of  those  States  it  re- 
quired all  the  machinery  and  influence  of  a  vicious  electoral  sys- 
tem to  organize  the  war  against  us  and  hold  those  communities 
compactly  as  our  foes." 

If  our  civil  war  might  have  been  prevented  by  the  Cumulative 
Vote,  how  much  greater  is  the  "  guarantee  of  peace  "  offered  by 
a  perfectly  just  system,  as  herein  given? 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  virtually  repealed  by  the  pass- 
age of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  Had  the  anti-slavery  voters  in 
the  North,  together  with  those  both  South  and  North  who  were 


THE   IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  45 

opposed  to  the  reopening  of  the  slavery  question,  been  permit- 
ted to  increase  their  representatives  in  Congress  as  fast  as  their 
numbers  increased,  that  bill,  it  is  quite  reasonable  to  suppose, 
would  never  have  been  passed.  It  is  reasonable  to  say  that  this 
compromise  line,  instead  of  being  abolished  as  it  was,  would 
have  been  extended  farther  west,  until  finally  it  would  have 
reached  the  Pacific  shore,  in  a  social  as  well  as  a  geographical 
sense.  Finally,  had  that  compromise  line  been  extended,  or 
even  had  it  remained  unchanged,  is  it  at  all  likely  that  war 
could  have  been  successfully  advocated  ?  I  will  close  the  evi- 
dence on  this  point  with  one  more  authority  on  this  subject, 
taken  from  the  American  Law  Review  for  January,  1872,  Vol.  6, 
page  280: 

"  Could  the  principle  of  Proportional  Kepresentation  have 
been  recognized  in  the  composition  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives twenty  years  ago,  it  would  have  introduced  into  Congress 
a  large  number  of  Northern  Democrats  and  Southern  Whigs, 
occupying  a  middle  ground  and  holding  the  balance  of  power — 
men  out  of  favor  at  home,  but  strong  enough,  both  in  numbers 
and  position,  to  check  the  violence  that  led  at  last  to  civil  war." 

The  foregoing  reasonable  testimony  admonishes  us  to  consider 
how  much  of  future  adversity  may  be  avoided  by  an  early  use  of 
an  improved  electoral  mechanism.  And  the  multitude  of  facts 
regarding  the  conduct  of  public  business — facts  as  well  known 
as  household  words,  and  which  are  an  acknowledged  scandal  to 
our  country — proclaim  the  subject  of  electoral  reform  to  be  one 
of  the  most  important  that  can  engage  the  attention  of  the 
American  people.  The  following  extract  from  the  American  Law 
Eeview  is  appropriate  at  this  point: 

"  In  this  view  of  the  case,  the  reformers  propose  to  abandon 
the  old  plan  of  trying  to  stimulate  public  virtue  and  to  preach 
men  into  the  habit  of  attending  primary  meetings,  and,  instead, 
to  devote  their  efforts  to  the  discovery  and  introduction  of  an 
improved  political  machinery.  And  if  we  are  asked  how  these 
things  can  be — how  it  is  possible  that  a  mere  arithmetical  device, 
an  ingenious  but  still  purely  mechanical  improvement  in  the  ma- 
chinery of  politics — can,  in  reason,  effect  a  moral  reform,  the  an- 
swer again  is  at  hand;  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  nature  and  origin  of 
the  political  evils  from  which  we  suffer — they  do  not  spring  from 
moral  causes.  If  we  grow  indifferent  and  neglectful,  it  is  because 


46          "I  KNOW  NOT  WHOM,  I  KNOW  NOT  WHAT." 

4 

the  barbarous  and  pernicious  machinery  with  which  we  have  to 
work  obstructs  us  and  breaks  us  down,  thwarting  our  best  im- 
pulses and  converting  us  into  blind  and  unwilling  slaves.  '  I 
feel/  says  Dr.  Walker  in  his  election  sermon,  *  when  I  put  my 
hand  into  the  ballot  box,  that  I  am  being  used  by  somebody,  I 
know  not  whom,  for  some  purpose,  I  know  not  what.' 

"  If  we  give  up  political  duty,  it  is  not  for  lack  of  public  vir- 
tue, but  from  disgust  and  disappointment.  We  know  it  does  not 
make  any  difference  whether  we  go  to  caucuses  or  not;  we  know 
that  it  makes  but  very  little  difference  whether  we  go  to  the  polls 
or  not.  But  remove  the  artificial  obstructions  that  the  present 
political  machinery,  with  the  abuses  it  has  produced  and  fos- 
tered, has  set  up;  substitute  for  it  a  more  rational  method  of 
voting,  which  shall  establish  justice,  encourage  individuality 
and  make  independence  possible  both  in  public  and  private  sta- 
tion, and  public  duties  and  the  public  service  will  again  be  what 
they  in  fact  are,  the  most  honorable  work  that  can  be  done,  and 
they  will  not  be  long  without  a  following.  It  is  not  now  the  public 
virtues  that  are  lacking;  what  we  need  is  a  fair  field  for  their  exer- 
cise." 9 

This  last  remark  embodies  a  truth  which  should  not  be  for- 
gotten: There  is  no  lack  of  honest  men  to  serve  the  people; 
but  they  cannot  be  got  through  the  "  machine."  When  Ballot- 
Box  Battles  cease,  this  trouble  will  no  longer  be.  The  wire- 
pullers, with  all  the  votes  they  may  purchase  and  all  the  tricks 
they  may  invent,  will  not  be  able  to  prevent  a  single  quota  of 
honest  voters  from  electing  the  man  of  their  choice.  The  cor- 
rupt element  will  be  drawn  off,  and  be  represented  in  proportion 
to  its  numbers  only,  leaving  the-  honest  portion  uninjured,  and 
the  main  current  of  political  life  will  thereby  be  purified.  The 
sheep  from  the  goats  will  be  separated;  they  cannot  be  turned 
over  to  the  wolves  by  a  few  votes  bought  up  to  create  a  majority 
and  turn  the  scale. 

"  One  grand  recommendation  of  this  plan  is,  however,  the 
tendency  it  would  have  to  bring  forward  distinguished  men  as 
candidates.  *  *  *  The  same  reason  which  induces 
the  bringing  forward  of  men  of  reputation  also  operates  to  keep 
them  in  the  position  which  they  have  shown  themselves  qualified 
to  occupy.  At  present  the  reverse  is  true.  The  moment  a  man 
becomes  prominent  by  displaying  his  ability  or  integrity,  he 


A   PAGE   OF   CHOICE   QUOTATIONS.  47 

makes  himself  obnoxious  to  those  who  rather  desire  tools  to 
carry  out  their  sinister  designs,  than  men  of  character  who  will 
obstruct  them.  Hence  an  intrigue  is  set  on  foot  to  defeat  such 
a  man,  and  always  with  success.  Those  in  the  community  who 
would  sanction  his  conduct,  in  case  an  opportunity  were  given 
them  to  express  their  opinion,  have  no  influence  whatever/' — 
Philadelphia  Inquirer,  Oct.  22,  1860. 

"  While  the  present  system  induces  a  candidate — except  when 
he  has  a  large  majority — to  suppress  and  conceal  some  of  his 
opinions,  lest  he  might  lose  votes,  the  new  method  induces  the 
candidate  to  express  himself  fully,  in  order  to  be  clearly  under- 
stood by  minds  in  sympathy  with  his  own.  There  will  be  en- 
couragement on  all  sides  to  tell  the  truth  and  not  fail  to  express 
their  opinions." — Hare. 

"  Now,  if  the  legislative  assembly  be  in  its  prime  intent  and 
use  a  parliament,  a  talking  body,  every  numerous  and  respecta- 
ble party  among  the  people  has  an  undoubted  right  to  its  share 
in  the  talk;  every  significant  phase  of  opinion  has  a  right  to  be 
presented  and  advocated;  or,  to  state  the  case  still  more 
strongly,  the  nation  has  a  right  to  such  practical  wisdom  as  can 
be  elicited  only  by  the  free  comparison  and  discussion  of  oppos- 
ing and  divergent  theories  and  measures." — North  American  Re- 
view, 1862,  Vol.  95,  p.  240. 

"It  is  by  comparison  that  the  standard  of  excellence  is 
raised." — Hare.  But  it  is  not  raised  very  fast  or  very  high, when 
the  worst  is  compared  with  the  worst,  as  it  now  most  frequently  is. 

"  It  is  by  the  co-operation  of  kindred  and  sympathetic  minds 
that  great  ends  are  accomplished." — Hare.  But  our  Slave  Pens 
prevent  that  co-operation.  "  Here  is  a  man  that  you  desire  to 
elect,  but  there  is  a  law  which  restrains  you  from  doing  so." 

"  The  initiation  of  all  wise  and  noble  things  comes,  and  must 
come,  from  individuals,  generally  at  first  from  some  one  indi- 
vidual."— Mill  on  Liberty,  Chapter  III,  p.  128,  119  late  ed.  Then 
let  that  one  be  heard,  and  permit  those  who  so  choose  to  make 
him  their  representative.  Politics  will  then  become  an  educator, 
instead  of  being,  as  now,  one  of  the  chief  agents  of  social  de- 
pravity. 

PARTY   POLITICS. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  not  a  hundredth  part  of  the  laws  are  of  a 
party  nature.  Of  the  1,801  statutes  enacted  by  the  Legislature 


48  TWO  DOZEN  PAKTIES  BETTER  THAN  TWO. 

of  New  York,  less  than  ten  were  party  measures.  The  people, 
therefore,  cannot  be  represented  to  any  great  extent  by  two  or 
three  parties,  except  in  special  cases,  when  some  one  or  a  few 
questions  render  for  a  time  all  others  of  little  interest  to  the 
voters.  Instead  of  two  or  more  "  great  parties,"  there  should 
be  electoral  groups  or  quotas,  by  which  men  of  live  ideas  and 
practical  ability  can  be  encouraged,  and  elected  to  present  those 
ideas  to  the  representatives  of  other  groups,  or  quotas,  for  their 
examination,  and,  if  practical,  their  adoption.  Comparison 
could  then  be  instituted.  The  best  could  be  compared  with  the 
best,  instead  of  the  worst  with  the  worst.  By  this  means,  the 
whole  community  would  become  interested  in  the  investigation, 
and  thereby. become  educated,  whereas  the  time  of  both  the 
voters  and  their  representatives  is  now  spent  principally  in 
studying  the  science  of  party  warfare.  Two  dozen  parties  would 
more  nearly  represent  the  people  than  only  two.  It  seems  that 
the  principal  utility  and  object  of  parties,  as  now  managed,  are 
to  keep  the  people  in  ignorance  of  everything  they  ought  to 
know,  and  thereby  cause  them  to  look  to  party  statesmen  for 
knowledge  and  protection.  The  real  object  of  the  party  mana- 
gers is,  too  often,  public  plunder;  or,  in  other  words,  to  so 
legislate  that  the  great  mass  in  all  trades  and  occupations  will 
have  to  prostitute  their  best  faculties  in  order  to  exist,  while  the 
profits  of  their  toil  is,  by  this  same  legislation,  gathered  up  by 
the  few,  who  tell  their  deluded  dupes  that  it  is  the  result  of 
superior  "brains."  While  it  is  true  that  success  is  of  ten  the 
result  of  superior  ability,  it  is  not  true  that  the  majority  of  the 
industrious  unsuccessful  fail  from  lack  of  sound  judgment.  Their 
failure  is,  too  often,  the  result  of  unsound  legislation,  to  which 
in  many  cases  they  blindly  assent.  Being,  as  a  rule,  prevented 
from  electing  those  best  qualified  to  make  laws,  and  even  de- 
prived of  their  counsel  by  a  partisan  press,  which,  instead  of 
such  counsel,  spreads  broadcast  the  fog  of  sophistry  and  deceit, 
the  many  come  at  last  to  think  there  is  no  relief  to  be  had.  If 
parties,  instead  of  being  an  occasional  need,  are  really  a  con- 
stant necessity,  there  should  be  more  of  them,  unless  the  people 
are  so  poor  in  ideas  that  they  have  but  few  to  be  represented. 
Where  there  are  two  great  parties,  representing  only  two,  or  at 
most  some  few  interests,  no  other  ideas,  however  valuable,  can 
gain  a  support.  It  is  with  much  difficulty,  and  at  great  per- 


TWO-THIRDS    OF    TWO-THIRDS    IS    FOUR-NINTHS.  49 

sonal  sacrifice,  that  the  public  can  be  made  aware  even  of  their 
existence,  and  to  think  of  making  any  use  of  them,  after  they  are 
made  public,  is  wholly  out  of  the  question,  under  this  Slave- 
pen  system  of  ours. 

If  the  voters  had  free  access  to  the  advice  and  official  service 
of  their  best  tliinkers,  their  most  capable  and  trustworthy  mem- 
bers, would  any  State  be  likely  to  enact  laws  at  the  rate  of  900 
per  year?  If  so,  representative  government  is  a  failure.  "We 
are  now  supporting  a  multitude  of  lawyers  who  are  unable  to  in- 
terpret the  multitude  of  statutes  now  enacted.  If  this  is  to  con- 
tinue, then  are  we  at  the  mercy  of  legal  quibbles  and  entangle- 
ments little  better  and  often  worse  than  the  rule  of  an  enlightened 
dictator.  No;  it-  is  not  two,  or  three,  or  any  number  of  "  great 
parties"  that  will  guard  our  rights  and  liberties.  "Eternal 
vigilance  "  must  be  not  only  the  duty,  but  the  privilege  also  of 
the  willing  and  capable  in  the  whole  community!  If  they  are 
found  in  the  ranks  of  a  hundred  different  parties,  then  each 
must  be  allowed  to  put  its  best  and  truest  men  on  guard! 


CHAPTER    VII. 

CHIPS  OF  FACT  AND    LOGIC — A  FEW  QUESTIONS  ADDRESSED  TO  REFORMERS. 

One-half  the  voters  are  now  unrepresented,  and  the  other  half 
are  misrepresented  by  the  men  they  vote  for  but  do  not  select. 
Voting  implies  choosing;  how  many  are  there  who  choose  the 
men  they  vote  for  ? 

It  seldom  happens  that  a  representative  body  is  chosen  by  so 
large  a  number  as  two-thirds  of  the  voters;  but  suppose  it  to 
happen,  and  also  that  a  law  is  passed  by  a  two-thirds  vote;  what 
do  we  find  ?  Answer:  Two- thirds  of  two-thirds  is  four-ninths; 
therefore,  less  than  half  the  voters  are  represented  by  that  law. 
Take  another  case:  One-half  of  one-half  is  one-fourth;  there- 
fore, if  it  were  possible  for  the  voters  to  elect  representatives  of 
their  own  choosing,  and  one  party,  by  it  ballot-box  majority  of  1, 
should  elect  the  whole  Legislature,  and  a  law  be  enacted  by  a 


60  TWO    POWERFUL    QUOTATIONS. 

majority  of   1,  that  law  would  represent  only  one-fourth  part  of 
the  voters. 

What  an  outrage  on  truth,  justice,  and  liberty  it  is  to  call  this 
a  republic,  when  it  permits  the  existence  of  a  system  that  will 
not  allow  the  people  to  form  a  party,  unless  they  become  the 
slaves  of  that  party. 

"  It  seems  a  small  thing  to  allow  a  voter  to  unite  with  others 
of  his  own  way  of  thinking,  and  not  fetter  him  to  those  who 
may  be  ignorant,  weak  or  corrupt  in  his  own  locality.  An  elec- 
toral community  formed  of  thousands  of  persons,  including 
every  diversity  of  thought,  intelligence,  education,  and  feeling, 
is  driven  together  and  told — what  is,  in  effect,  a  cruel  irony — to 
elect  a  representative.  If  it  be  only  that  the  person  chosen  is  to 
support  this  or  that  minister,  or  this  or  that  dogma  which  the 
majority  in  its  caprice  or  its  ignorance  has  set  up,  the  represen- 
tation may  be  enough;  but  if  it  be  to  exercise  a  judgment  on  all 
the  subjects  which  at  this  day  become  matters  of  legislation, 
then  it  may  be  confidently  said  that  no  fable,  legend,  or  allegory, 
has  personified  a  creature  capable  of  adequately  representing 
such  a  heterogeneous  combination  of  men." — Thomas  Hare. 

President  Grarfield  again  condemns  the  system,  and  at  the 
same  time  praises  Mr.  Hare's  book.  Mr.  Marshall,  of  Illinois, 
had  offered  an  amendment,  which  provided  for  the  election  of 
Congressmen  by  the  Cumulative  plan,  the  same  as  recommended 
by  the  Senate  Committee.  In  the  discussion  which  followed, 
Mr.  G-arfield,  in  addition  to  his  remarks  quoted  on  page  10, 
said:  "  I  can  find  no  stronger  illustration  of  the  evil  than  in 
my  own  State.  When  I  was  first  elected  to  Congress,  in  the 
Fall  of  1862,  the  State  of  Ohio  had  a  clear  Eepublican  majority 
of  about  twenty-five  thousand,  but  by  the  adjustment  and  dis- 
tribution of  political  power  in  the  State  there  were  fourteen 
Democratic  Representatives  upon  this  floor  and  only  five  Repub- 
licans. The  State  that  cast  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand Republican  votes,  as  against  two  hundred  and  twenty-five 
thousand  Democratic  votes,  was  represented  in  the  proportion 
of  five  Republicans  and  fourteen  Democrats.  In  the  next  Con- 
gress there  was  no  great  political  change  in  the  popular  vote  of 
Ohio — a  change  of  only  twenty  thousand — but  the  result  was 
that  seventeen  Republican  members  were  sent  here  from  Ohio 
and  only  two  Democrats.  We  find  that  only  so  small  a  change 
of  majority  as  twenty  thousand  changed  the  representation  in 
Congress  from  fourteen  Democrats  and  five  Republicans  to 
seventeen  Republicans  and  two  Democrats!  Now,  no  man, 


CA    POWERFUL    BOOK,7     SAYS    MB.    aARFIELD. 


51 


whatever  his  politics,  can  justly  defend  a  system  that  may  in 
theory,  and  frequently  does  in  practice,  produce  such  results  as 
these.  *  *  *  A  powerful  book  written  a  few  years  since  by 
Mr.  Hare,  of  England,  was  the  beginning  of  the  discussion  on 
this  subject." 

The  above  remarks  of  Mr.  Garfield  may  be  found  in  the  Con- 
gressional Globe,  Part  6,  2d  session,  41st  Congress,  1869-70,  p. 
4737.  The  fact  that  Mr.  Garfield  referred  to  Mr.  Hare's  work 
as  a  powerful  book  is  quite  significant.  It  is  not  improbable 
that,  had  Mr.  Hare's  plan  been  the  subject  of  debate,  he  would 
have  urged  its  adoption  as  strongly  as  he  did  the  Cumulative 
plan.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  he  knew  that  the  majority  of 
the  House  would  by  no  means  consent  to  so  thorough  a  reform 
as  that  of  Mr.  Hare's.  The  defeat  of  the  plan  proposed,  and 
the  neglect  from  that  day  to  this  to  remedy  the  defects  of  the 
present  system  proves  conclusively  that  Congress  does  not  to 
any  great  extent  represent  the  people.  The  query  that  natur- 
ally arises  is,  Whom  does  it  represent  ?  It  is  impossible  for  it  to 
represent  the  majority,  since  the  majority  rule,  at  best,  ends  at 
the  ballot-box,  where  it  begins.  The  district  system,  however, 
often  prevents  the  majority  from  ruling  even  there;  and  the 
more  parties,  the  worse  it  is.  We  will  suppose  two  parties  only, 
and  show  how  they  wield  the  paper  sword. 

EXHIBIT  No.   4. 


DISTRICTS. 

VOTERS. 

LAW-MAKEKS. 

1. 

a  aaaa 

bbbb     . 

A 

2. 

aaaaa 

bbbb... 

A 

3. 

a  aaaa 

bbbb 

A 

4. 

aaaaa 

bbbb... 

A 

5. 

aaa 

bbbbbb  

B 

6. 

a  a 

bbbbbbb  

B 

7. 

a  a 

bbbbbbb  

B 

Voters  in  each  party— A,  27;   B,  36.     Total,  63. 


52  WHERE    ARE    THE    PEOPLE? 

This  exhibit,  like  those  in  Chapter  II,  represents  a  State  and 
districts.  The  A  party  is  only  two-thirds  as  large  as  the  B,  and 
yet  it  gets  the  majority  of  the  law-makers.  Our  table  represents 
the  evil  in  its  mildest  form;  the  actual  results  are  often  worse, 
as  tables  from  election  returns  prove.  If  those  elected  were  genu- 
ine representatives  of  those  who  voted  for  them,  it  would  not  be 
so  bad.  As  has  already  been  stated,  the  mere  disfranchisement 
of  even  a  large  portion  of  the  voters  is  not  so  great  an  evil  as  the 
enslavement  of  them,  all  by  a  corrupt  party  power,  which  can  at 
will  use  their  votes  to  plunder,  demoralize  and  degrade  them.  It 
must  be  conceded  that  true  representatives  of  even  a  quarter 
part  of  all  the  voters  would  not  think  of  enacting  such  infamies 
as  are  enacted  by  the  tools  of  parties.  It  should,  therefore,  be 
borne  in  mind  that  what  is  known  as  minority  representation  is 
not  the  one  thing  needful;  we  have  got  minority  representation 
already,  and  that,  too,  "  with  a  vengeance."  Any  system  that 
will  make  the  people's  power  superior  to  that  of  party  must  of 
necessity  secure  representation  to  minorities,  as  well  as  to  ma- 
jorities. One  part  cannot  be  free  unless  the  other  is  also;  any 
system  that  will  prevent  a  part  from  being  represented  will  en- 
slave them  all. 

"  Give  exclusive  representation  to  majorities,  and  you  create 
parties  whose  opposition  tto  each  other  will  be  permanent — one 
opposing,  as  a  duty  to  itself,  all  that  the  other  proposes,  how- 
ever beneficial  to  the  public  that  proposition  may  be.  You 
divide  the  people  into  two  hostile  camps  struggling  for  the 
mastery/' 

Great  parties  are  an  occasional  convenience,  but  not  a  con- 
stant necessity. 

One  bad  feature  of  great  parties  under  the  present  system  is, 
they  will  not  disband  "when  the  war  is  over;"  their  leaders 
refuse  to  have  them  "  mustered  out." 

There  never  can  be  a  people's  government  so  long  as  the 
people  are  unable  to  control  their  parties;  the  policy  of  govern- 
ment is  shaped  by  party;  the  policy  of  party  is  shaped  by  mo- 
nopoly. Where  are  the  people  ?  They  are  supporting  parties, 
and  thereby  monopolies  also.  They  are  the  body  guard  of  both 
at  one  and  the  same  time. 


WE    ABE    UNDER   AN    OLIGARCHY.  53 

"THERE  is  BUT  ONE  PARTY  OF  TWO  PARTS." 

"These  two  sets  of  professional  election-managers,  who  pre- 
tend to  have  these  great  differences  over  great  questions,  are 
playing  two  parts  in  a  farce.  Either  one  of  them  will  trade 
with  the  other  for  half  of  the  people's  offices,  when  they  cannot 
have  the  whole.  It  is  perfectly  well  understood  that,  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  the  same  set  of  men,  under  two  names, 
manage  both  political  organizations.  *  *  *  In  Washington, 
Albany  and  New  York,  and  everywhere  else  throughout  the 
country,  these  men  have  always  made  bargains  with  each  other 
to  divide  the  public  offices  when  either  one  set  could  not  have 
the  whole.  *  *  *  I  do  not  mean  that  there  are  not  a  good 
many  honest  men  who  are  prominent  in  each  of  these  organiza- 
tions, who  have  no  idea  of  deceiving  themselves  or  any  one 
else.  But  this  is  the  working  of  the  machinery;  this  is  the 
certain  result,  assuming  the  best  of  intentions  to  exist.  The 
process  of  election  has  "become  a  mere  form.  It  has  been  super- 
seded by  that  of  nomination;  the  process  of  nomination  has 
fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  professional  election-workers;  the 
professional  election-workers  have  fallen  under  the  control  of 
their  leaders,  and  the  leaders  trade  and  bargain  over  the  peo- 
ple's offices,  and  keep  up  the  form  of  two  '  parties '  (as  they 
are  called)  to  catch  our  votes.  "We  do  not  elect  our  officers. 
They  are  appointed  for  us  by  the  managers  of  the  machine. 
We  talk  of  two  '  parties/  There  is  only  one  party  of  two  parts. 
It  is  time  to  name  names.  What  difference  does  it  make  to  us 
whether  our  public  officials  are  appointed  by  Mr.  Roscoe  Conk- 
ling,  or  Mr.  John  Kelly,  or  by  the  two  acting  in  concert,  or  by 
their  successors  ?  We  are  disfranchised  none  the  less  so  that 
we  are  allowed  to  walk  decorously  to  the  polls,  and  there  please 
ourselves  with  the  choice  between  two  sets  of  printed  papers, 
prepared  by  the  same  men,  but  with  different  sets  of  names, 
with  the  eagle  at  the  top  printed,  it  may  be,  from  different  dies. 
Are  we  to  call  this  kind  of  performance  '  popular  election '  ? 
This  elect-ion  machine  has  disfranchised  the  people,  has  en- 
slaved their  servants,  has  centralized  power  in  the  hands  of  an 
oligarchy,  has  destroyed  the  responsibility  of  our  public  ser- 
vants, destroys  the  efficiency  of  the  public  service,  corrupts  the 
public  service,  sells  the  control  of  the  public  service  to  the 


54  QUESTIONS    NOT   YET    ANSWERED. 

great  monopolies,  defies  the  people's  will,  and  makes  the  peo- 
ple's healthy  life  and  growth  an  impossible  thing.  We  have 
not  a  people's  government,  but  the  tyranny  of  an  election  ma- 
chine. " 

The  foregoing  quotation  is  from  an  article  entitled  "The 
People's  Problem,"  by  Albert  Stickney,  of  New  York  City,  and 
published  in  "  Scribner's  Monthly  Magazine"  for  July,  August 
and  September,  1881.  I  have  lately  understood  that  the  author 
has  since  published  a  work  on  this  subject.  His  plan  is  radi- 
cally different  from  both  the  present  system  and  proportional 
representation. 

QUESTIONS    TO    REFORMERS. 

To  the  Ministers:  You  profess  to  teach  the  "Gospel  of 
Peace."  Can  you  then,  consistently  or  conscientiously  3  uphold 
in  any  way  the  present  electoral  system,  which  is  not  only  an 
incentive  to  war,  but  to  every  species  of  crime  also  ? 

To  Temperance  Reformers :  Do  you  propose  to  fight  the 
enemy  in  the  old-fashioned  way,  or  are  you  sufficiently  pro- 
gressive to  adopt  the  modern  improvement  known  as  propor- 
tional representation  ? 

To  all  who  complain  of  persecution,  present  or  prospective : 
Will  you  not  deserve  to  be  persecuted  a  little  if,  after  under- 
standing the  infamy  of  the  present  system  and  the  justice  of 
proportional  representation,  you  neglect  to  do  all  in  your  power 
to  inaugurate  the  latter?  How  can  you  expect  justice  while 
you  support  a  system  that  is  the  chief  fountain-head  of  injus- 
tice? 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE    PRESS,    PUBLIC    OPINION,    AND    PARTIES. 

"  It  is  to  the  press,  it  is  said,  that  we  must  look  for  the  forma- 
tion of  the  great  mass  of  public  opinion  on  political  and  social 
questions,  and  it  is  of  importance  to  watch  with  the  greatest  care 
any  defects  capable  of  remedy  which  diminish  the  good  influ- 
ence the  press  exercises;  and  if  any  one  can  contribute  to  im- 


THE    PBESS,    PUBLIC    OPINION,    AND    PABTIES.  55 

• 

prove  the  strength  of  the  press  for  good  and  to  diminish  it  when 
it  tends  towards  evil,  he  can  confer  no  greater  benefit  upon  the 
community  at  large." 

How  to  get  the  greatest  good  with  the  smallest  admixture  of 
evil  is  the  problem. 

"  It  is  only  in  the  event  of  its  reporting  &afact  that  which  is  not 
fact,  and  of  its  reasoning  on  such  false  representation  or  as- 
sumption, that  it  may  mislead.  Such  errors  must  be  as  prejudi- 
cial to  the  progress  of  political,  as  of  every  other  science.  * 
It  is  very  possible  for  a  writer  who  has  a  strong 
feeling  or  bias  on  any  particular  subject;  honestly  to  believe  and 
represent  that  which  is  his  own  opinion  to  be  the  opinion  of  the 
public.  As  a  supposed  organ  of  public  opinion,  the  press  is  at 
all  times  imperfect,  and  may  become  dangerous.  The  danger 
would  result  from  trusting  any  body  of  men,  however  high  in 
character  to  wield  a  machine  of  such  vast  power  as  "public 
opinion."  In  forming  public  opinion,  we  have  seen  that  the 
press  is  the  most  potent  of  material  gifts  which  has  been  vouch- 
safed to  man.  Diverse  and  antagonistic  views  and  interests  may 
all  invoke  its  aid,  and  be  heard  before  the  great  court  of  reason 
and  conscience.  But  when  the  press  assumes  to  declare  public 
opinion,  it  ceases  to  be  the  advocate,  and  takes  the  office  of 
judge.  In  preparing  itself  for  this  high  function,  it  is  assailed 
by  all  the  disturbing  causes  of  party  and  private  influence  and 
interest,  which  bias  the  conduct  and  corrupt  the  judgment  of 
mankind.  It  is  also  important  not  to  forget,  with  reference  to 
public  journals,  that  they  must  necessarily  be  conducted  on 
mercantile  principles.  They  must  be  remunerative,  or  they  can 
not  long  continue.  *  *  *  *  The  opinion  which 
is  declared  by  the  press  to  be  that  of  the  public  is  very  likely  to 
become  so,  if  the  declaration  be  believed,  however  unhappy  or 
evil  may  be  the  course  to  which  it  leads. 

"  People  yield  their  assent  and  concurrence  to  what  seems  to 
them  inevitable.  If  it  should  happen  to  become  the  opinion  of 
an  apparent  majority,  and  be  adopted  by  those  in  power,  it  pro- 
ceeds with  a  vastly  accelerated  rapidity,  overwhelming  all  oppo- 
nents. *  *  The  press  has  no  statistical  or  other 
means  of  ascertaining  the  opinions  of  the  vast  and  silent  mass. 
*  *  A  House  in  which  every  member  would  sit  as 
the  representative  of  a  unanimous  constituency  will  effectually 


56  THE    PRESS,    PUBLIC    OPINION,    AND    PARTIES. 

prevent  any  successful  counterfeit  of  the  public  voice,  for  he 
will  have  been  selected  as  the  most  accurate  medium  for  convey- 
ing the  opinions  of  his  constituents,  not  only  on  the  subjects  on 
which  those  opinions  had  been  awakened,  but  on  those  on  which 
they  were  latent,  and  might  be  evoked  by  new  and  unexpected 
circumstances.  They  agree  with  him  from  sympathy  or  from 
deference.  The  general  opinion  of  the  nation,  including  that 
large  body  which  now  silently  and  passively  submits  to  disturb- 
ing elements  and  causes,  will  thus  be  readily  and  habitually 
manifested." — Thomas  Hare. 

11  If  what  is  called  public  opinion  were  always  the  opinion  of 
the  whole  community,  the  press  would,  as  its  organ,  be  an  ef- 
fective guardian  against  the  abuse  of  power,  and  supersede  the 
necessity  of  the  concurrent  majority;  just  as  the  right  of  suf- 
frage would  do,  where  the  community,  in  reference  to  the  action 
of  government,  had  but  one  interest.  But  such  is  not  the  case; 
on  the  contrary,  what  is  called  public  opinion,  instead  of  being 
the  united  opinion  of  the  whole  community,  is  usually  nothing 
more  than  the  opinion  or  voice  of  the  strongest  interest  or  com- 
bination of  interests,  and  not  unfrequently,  of  a  small  but  ener- 
getic and  active  portion  of  the  whole.  Public  opinion,  in  rela- 
tion to  government  and  its  policy,  is  as  much  divided  and  diver- 
sified as  are  the  interests  of  the  community;  and  tile  press, 
instead  of  being  the  organ  of  the  whole,  is  usually  but  the  organ 
of  these  various  and  diversified  interests  respectively,  or  rather 
of  the  parties  growing  out  of  them.  It  is  used  by  them  as  the 
means  of  controlling  public  opinion,  and  of  so  molding  it  as  to 
promote  their  peculiar  interests  and  to  aid  in  carrying  on  the 
warfare  of  party.  As  the  instrument  of  party  warfare,  it  con- 
tributes greatly  to  increase  party  excitement  and  the  violence 
and  virulence  of  party  struggles,  and,  in  the  same  degree,  the 
tendency  to  oppression  and  abuse  of  power.  Instead,  then,  of 
superseding  the  necessity  of  the  concurrent  majority,  it  increases 
it  by  increasing  the  violence  and  force  of  party  feelings,  in  like 
manner  as  party  caucuses  and  party  machinery;  of  the  latter  of 
which,  indeed,  it  forms  an  important  part:" — John  C.  Calhoun, 
in  Disquisition  on  Government,  Vol.  I,  page  76. 

The  truth  of  the  foregoing 'remarks  of  Messrs.  Hare  and  Cal- 
houn is  beyond  question.  In  fact,  it  is  an  old  story,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  one  that  is  daily  repeated  throughout  the  whole  land. 


ANOTHER  PROBLEM  SOLVED.  57 

The  situation  is  this :  The  public  has  no  organization  whereby 
it  can  declare  its  opinion;  the  press  having  no  means  of  ascer- 
taining what  the  opinion  of  the  whole  really  is,  makes  up  one 
from  what  scanty  material  it  can  gather,  adding  its  own  com- 
ments either  to  strengthen  or  weaken  the  supposed  opinion  of 
the  public,  or  else,  under  the  influence  of  party,  it  declares  the 
few  ideas  which  a  party  represents  to  be  the  chief  questions  of 
public  interest. 

Therefore,  the  problem  to  solve  is,  how  to  enable  the  public  to 
make  its  opinion  known,  not  on  one  subject,  but  on  all  subjects; 
and  furthermore,  how  to  stop  corrupt  party  power  and  influence 
from  preventing  its  being  known.  This  problem  has  already 
been  worked  out  on  the  various  pages  of  this  pamphlet,  and  the 
answer  is  embodied  in  two  words — PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION  ! 

When  every  opinion  and  interest  of  importance  shall  be  repre- 
sented in  the  various  public  bodies  by  men,  each  of  whom  will 
be  the  agent,  not  of  a  great  party  only,  but  of  a  single  quota  of 
voters,  who  will  demand  that  their  opinions  be  made  known, 
then  the  press  can  report  those  opinions.  It  can  at  the  same 
time  criticise  them,  and  thereby,  to  the  extent  of  its  ability  and 
resources,  assist  informing  public  opinion.  It  will  drop  its  as- 
sumed character  of  judge,  and  devote  its  whole  power  to  educa- 
tional efforts,  which  may  result  in  making  judges  of  us  all.  Thus, 
by  one  master  stroke,  the  press  will  be  made  more  powerful  for 
good,  parties  powerless  to  harm,  and  public  opinion  will  become 
a  power  in  the  land. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

First:  To  the  honest  skeptics,  or  those  who  from  selfish  mo- 
tives may  oppose  Proportional  Representation,  the  answer  is: 
What  the  Danes  have  done,  we  can  probably  do.  A  quarter  of 
a  century  and  more  of  successful  practice  proves  its  practicabil- 
ity. Common  sense,  enlightened  reason  and  mathematics  de- 
clare it  to  be  just,  and  the  total  depravity  of  our  present  system 


58  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

insures  its  superiority.     These  are  a  sufficient  reply  to  all  objec- 
tions. 

Second:  Some  have  objected  to  the  removal  of  district  lines, 
claiming  that  each  locality  must  be  represented,  and  that  were 
voters  to  elect  a  man  outside  their  own  locality,  their  own  town 
would  have  no  representative.  The  answer  to  this  is:  First — 
They  will  not  be  compelled  to  go  away  from  home  for  a  candi- 
date. In  general,  only  the  fragments  of  quotas,  who  cannot 
alone  elect  a  man,  will  go  outside  the  home  circle.  If,  however, 
the  voters  in  a  town  at  one  extremity  of  the  State  can  find  in  a 
distant  town  some  one  of  superior  ability  to  any  among  them- 
selves, they  would  certainly  prefer  him  in  the  many  cases  of 
emergency  that  arise,  and  who  dare  say  they  shall  not  employ 
him  ?  Second — The  producers  and  consumers  of  commodities  in 
one  town  are  naturally  more  in  sympathy  with  those  of  a  distant 
town  than  with  the  monopolists  of  their  own  locality;  and  if  not 
strong  enough  to  protect  their  interests,  they  plainly  have  a  right 
to  receive  aid  from  those  of  like  views  in  other  places. 

Each  vote  to  be  counted  for  only  one  candidate. — This,  at  first, 
will  appear  to  many  as  curtailing  the  power  of  the  voter,  but,  on 
investigation,  will  be  seen  to  be  the  very  opposite.  It  should 
always  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  the  number  of  voters  who  can 
elect  a  representative,  and  not  the  number  of  votea  which  any 
one  can  give,  that  is  the  true  test  of  electoral  power.  Each  vote 
will  count  onef  and  help  to  elect  one;  whereas,  at  present,  thou- 
sands count  as  nothing.  Besides,  each  voter  will  have  equal 
power  with  every  other  voter  of  all  parties,  and  his  vote  will  in 
every  instance  help  to  elect  all  the  representatives  his  party  may 
be  entited  to. 

Many,  without  stopping  to  consider,  will  say  that  where  a  leg- 
islature of  100  members  or  more  is  to  be  chosen,  so  many  names 
on  a  ticket  would  be  very  inconvenient.  But  this  objection  is 
without  foundation;  there  will  in  no  case  be  so  many,  for  the 
reason  that  in  electing  by  quotas  the  voters  will  not  put  on  a 
ballot  more  than  a  limited  number,  which,  for  that  matter,  might 
be  regulated  by  law;  the  better  organized  each  separate  quota 
becomes,  the  less  names  it  would  be  necessary  to  place  on  a 
ballot;  even  one  might  often  be  enough.  It  has  been  suggested 
to  have  several  ballot-boxes,  numbered  respectively,  first,  sec- 
ond, third  and  fourth  choice;  the  voter  then  would  deposit  a 


YOU  CANNOT  HIDE  THE  SLAVE-PENS.  *  .59 

ballot  for  his  first  choice  in  one,  and  for  his  others  in  their  re- 
spective numbers;  but  this  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Again,  there 
will  be  many  more  parties  when  the  voters  are  free  than  now. 
Each  one  will  know  about  how  many  it  can  elect,  and  will  place 
a  corresponding  number  of  names  on  a  ticket.  Each  town  or 
city  will  as  a  general  thing  vote  only  for  the  number  that  it  now 
does;  where  parts  of  quotas  are  compelled  to  join  with  those  of 
other  localities,  they  will,  as  a  rule,  vote  for  one  or  more  pre- 
viously agreed  upon.  There  will,  however,  always  be  an  oppor- 
tunity to  add  other  names,  etc.,  and  this  will  be  an  advantage. 

Finally,  to  sustain  any  reasonable  objection  to  Proportional 
Eepresentation,  the  objector  must  either  prove  mathematics 
false,  or  else  show  that  the  present  system  is  lens  objectionable 
than  the  one  proposed;  to  prove  the  latter,  the  objector  will 
have  to  hide  the  Slave-pens,  and  this  cannot  noiv  be  done.  The 
liberty-crushing  and  crime-creating  character  of  the  present  sys- 
tem— to  say  nothing  of  its  absurdity — demands  a  change  of  some 
sort,  and  the  justice  and  simplicity  of  the  plans  presented  seem 
to  require  no  further  explanation. 


CHAPTER    X. 

"WHAT  ARE  YOU  GOING  TO  DO  ABOUT  IT?" 

"We  are  continually  reminded  that  our  troubles  are  caused  by 
the  acts  of  our  own  chosen  agents;  and  therefore  we  must  not 
only  foot  their  bills,  but,  like  unsophisticated  simpletons,  throw 
up  our  hands  and  be  robbed  by  every  highbinder  they  may  com- 
mission for  that  purpose. 

That  these  law-makers'  are  not  of  our  choosing  has  been  fairly 
demonstrated.  They  are  neither  nominated  nor  elected  by  "  the 
people."  There  is  only  one  sense  in  which  it  can  be  said  that 
we  have  the  ballot  in  this  country,  and  that  is  when  an  over- 
whelming majority  are  in  favor  of  some  one  measure  or  a  few 
special  ones,  and  are  unanimous  as  to  whom  they  will  elect  to  en- 


60  TRY  THE  SHAM  BALLOT  AGAIN?   NO,  NEVER! 

force  them.  On  all  ordinary  occasions,  and  for  the  management 
of  the  great  bulk  of  public  business,  the  ballot  is  of  no  more 
utility  than  are  the  cob-houses  the  children  build.  The  fact 
stands  out  clear  and  plain  that  we  are  not  enjoying  the  benefits 
of  a  people's  government — that  we  are  not  in  possession  of  the 
ballot! 

Our  ancestors,  who  revolted  from  the  rule  of  one  king,  achieved 
their  independence  by  force  of  arms.  We  are  under  the  rule  of 
many  kings;  how  shall  we  achieve  ours  ?  Shall  the  change  be 
peaceable,  or  by  force  ?  That  it  must  be  revolutionary,  cannot 
be  questioned,  since  all  testimony  shows  that  the  government 
founded  over  a  century  ago  has  been  practically  overthrown,  or, 
as  expressed  in  a  previous  chapter,  "nullified,  defeated  and  set 
aside  "  by  our  method  of  voting. 

A  peaceable  revolution  can  only  be  brought  about  by  an  over- 
whelming majority  at  the  ballot-box,  and  this  is  almost  impossi- 
ble to  obtain  under  the  present  system.  How,  peaceably  to 
obtain  a  genuine  ballot,  in  place  of  the  present  counterfeit,  is 
the  problem  to  be  solved  by  those  who  propose  to  avoid  a  vio- 
lent change. 

Those  who  admit  the  right  are  frequently  numerous  enough  to 
establish  it,  if  they  would  act  as  well  as  talk;  or,  when  acting, 
would  attack  the  enemy's  stronghold,  instead  of  his  foraging 
"  parties."  At  every  election,  the  honest  reformers  are  told  that 
"this  is  the  most  important  contest  in  many  years;  vote  the  ticket 
just  once  more,"  and  other  things  to  suit  the  occasion.  And  so 
the  ballot-box  battles  rage  again;  and  so  they  will  continue  to 
rage  so  long  as  we  use  a  mechanism  that  enables  the  modern 
Pirates  of  Civilization  to  launch  a  new  destroyer  for  every  one 
the  people  capture,  or  even  attempt  to  capture;  that  creates  a 
new  scourge  in  the  very  act  of  removing  an  old  one — a  mech- 
anism whicn  thorough,  patient  and  repeated  trials  have  shown 
to  be  better  adapted  to  execute  the  will  of  devils  than  the  will 
of  honest  men.  We  cannot  obtain  a  mechanism  that  will  execute 
our  will  by  continuing  to  use  a  ballot  that  constantly  thwarts  it. 

Therefore,  VOTE  NO  MORE,  until  you  can  vote  as  sovereigns,  and 
not  as  slaves!  Assemble  in  every  city,  town,  and  school  district, 
and  commence  a  movement  that  will  secure  a  genuine  ballot. 
I  am  aware  that  this  proposition  to  stop  voting  will  be  ridi- 
culed; but  I  am  aware  also  that  it  is  useless  to  exhort  the  ma- 


IT    PERPETUATES    THE    ETIL.  61 

jority  of  mankind  to  do  what  they  ought  to  do,  even  when  they 
admit  that  it  ought  to  be  done.  Therefore,  unless  those  who 
appreciate  the  importance  of  a  radical  change  in  our  represen- 
tative system  inaugurate  a  movement  to  bring  the  subject  to 
the  notice  of  the  whole  people  and  keep  it  there,  this  little  tract, 
with  the  facts  it  contains,  will  share  the  fate  of  similar  contri- 
butions on  the  same  important  subject.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  this  reform  is  not  a  new  one;  it  was  a  live  question  twenty 
years  ago — more  so  then  than  now.  Why  this  decline?  An- 
swer: The  people  have  been  kept  busy  voting,  and  the  press, 
which  has  been  mainly  controlled  by  the  wire-pulling  class  of 
politicians,  has  kept  the  matter  "dark."  I  predict  that  our 
present  reform  parties  will  be  very  slow  to  take  effective  action 
in  the  matter,  unless  something  be  done  to  quicken  their  move- 
ment. Let  even  a  small  band  of  voters  in  every  community 
make  known  their  intention  not  to  vote  again  until  they  can 
have  the  ballot  in  fact,  instead  of  the  present  sham,  and  the  bat- 
tle will  be  more  than  half  won.  A  government  that  enforces 
the  use  of  a  mechanism  that  thwarts  the  will  of  those  who  are 
compelled  to  use  it,  may  be  republican  in  form,  but  in  fact, 
NEVER.  Therefore,  demand  that  it  shall  be  made  to  execute,  as 
well  as  declare  such  principles. 


CHAPTEE    XI. 

OTHER    ATTRIBUTES    OF    SOVEREIGNTY THE    REFERENDUM. 

When  we  elect  men  to  frame  a  new  Constitution,  their  act 
does  not  become  law  until  ratified  by  a  vote  of  the  people.  Why 
should  not  other  legislation  be  subject  to  the  people's  approval 
before  the  people  are  made  subject  to  it,  or  before  they  are  sub- 
jugated and  utterly  ruined  by  it,  as  is  often  the  case. 

It  has  been  objected  that  to  compel  all  legislative  enactments 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  would  so  delay  leg- 
islation as  to  become  impracticable.  To  obviate  this,  it  could  be 
arranged  that  when  one-third,  or  less,  of  the  Legislature  should 


62  OTHEK    ATTRIBUTES    OF    SOVEREIGN    POWER. 

demand  it,  any  act  should  be  so  referred;  or  when  a  certain 
number  of  voters  should  so  order,  it  should  be  done. 

When  the  people  both  nominate  and  elect  their  representa- 
tives, it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  there  will  not  be  that  countless 
multitude  of  laws  which  the  present  system  fosters,  and  the  de- 
lays attending  their  ratification,  even  if  they  were  all  submitted 
to  that  test,  would  probably  not  be  so  great  us  is  the  delay  now 
when  a  good  one  is  required  to  be  enacted  or  a  bad  one  re- 
pealed. 

Furthermore,  a  law  applying  to  a  special  locality  only  could 
be  ratified  or  rejected  by  the  voters  in  that  locality.  No  measure 
of  importance  should  as  a  rule  become  law  until  due  time  has 
been  given  the  people  to  object. 

If  the  referendum  is  not  required  for  any  other  purpose,  it  is 
for  the  two  following :  First,  it  would  free  the  representative 
from  temptation;  and  second,  it  would  act  as  an  educator,  by 
compelling  the  voters  to  discuss  and  study  the  requirements  of 
society.  A  perfect  representative  system  without  the  referen- 
dum would  be  better  than  the  referendum  without  the  first.  With 
proportional  representation  to  work  with,  the  other  can  be  had 
at  short  notice,  when  the  majority  so  decide. 

THE    INITIATIVE. 

As  it  is  not  always  possible  to  select  from  a  community  a  few 
who  will  embody  the  wisdom  of  the  whole,  and  as  it  is  unreason- 
able to  expect  a  rebellious  or  an  exceptionally  inharmonious 
body  to  do  all  that  may  be  required  in  certain  emergencies, 
therefore  a  certain  proportion  of  the  voters  in  a  State  should  be 
allowed  to  offer  measures  which  may  become  law  when  indorsed 
by  a  majority  of  the  whole.  This  provision,  besides  being  a 
measure  of  safety,  would  act  as  an  educator  of  both  the  people 
and  their  representatives. 

THE    VETO. 

To  elect  a  numerous  body  to  execute  our  will,  and  then  to 
select  ONE  of  that  number  to  determine  whether  our  will  shall  or 
shall  not  be  executed,  is  supremely  ridiculous.  A  true  republic 
has  no  use  for  a  President  endowed  with  athe  present  preroga- 
tives. 


WHY  IS  THE  SOVEREIGN  A  SLAVE?  63 

THE  SENATE. 

Each  State  has  two  Senators  in  Congress,  but  the  Representa- 
tives in  the  Lower  House  are  in  proportion  to  the  population. 
What  is  the  result  ?  Two  Senators  from  Nevada,  representing 
at  the  last  presidential  election  less  than  twenty  thousand 
voters,  can  offset  two  from  New  York,  representing  over  a  mil- 
lion voters;  or,  the  votes  of  two  Senators,  representing  the 
smaller  number,  may,  and  often  do,  neutralize  those  of 
thirty-three  in  the  Lower  House,  representing  the  larger  num- 
ber. There  are  seventy-six  Senators  in  Congress;  of  these, 
thirty-nine  is  a  majority.  Now,  these  thirty-nine  may  represent 
the  Ies3  populous  States,  and  thereby  defeat  the  will  of  the 
people.  The  sum  and  substance  of  the  matter  is,  that  where 
there  are  two  bodies,  and  one  opposes  the  will  of  the  other,  they 
cannot  both  represent  the  will  of  the  people.  Furthermore,  if  the 
people  are  represented  in  one  House,  why  have  two?  If  one 
House  chosen  directly  by  the  people  will  not  represent  and  exe- 
cute their  will,  how  can  another  NOT  chosen  directly  by  them 
help  the  matter.  The  more  we  examine  this  thing,  the  worse  it 
looks.  Therefore,  abolish  the  Senate!  State  Senates  also  are 
worse  than  useless,  and  must  go. 


CONCLUSION. 

Sovereigns  of  America!  Do  you  think  those  who  are,  by  the 
present  ballot,  enabled  to  defy  your  will,  will  give  you  a  ballot 
with  which  you  can  execute  your  will  ?  Freedom  comes  not  by 
talking  alone;  action  must  go  with  it.  Talking  is  good  when  it 
indicates  that  action  is  near  at  hand.  The  first  step  requisite  to 
establish  a  real  ballot  is  for  the  majority  of  the  people  to  publicly 
declare  that  they  will  have  it.  When  you  assemble  for  that  pur- 
pose, action  will  have  commenced. 

The  time  necessary  to  effect  this  one  reform  need  be  but  a  few 
months,  and  the  expense,  which  would  be  but  little,  will  be  re- 
paid a  thousand-fold  in  money,  and  more  yet  in  morals,  in  much 
less  than  a  thousand  days  after  it  is  done.  Let  us  establish  a 
free  ballot — one  that  will  enable  us  to  select  our  officials  from 
the  best,  instead  of  the  worst  elements.  If  we  want  liberty,  we 
must  do  something  to  get  it.  If  "the  people^^sus^fae  sovereign, 
why  is  the  sovereign  a  slave  f  /^ 

UNIVERSITY 


><     RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                                3 

4 

5                                6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

OCT  14  1989 

A      . 

mm:  NOV  u* 

1988 

rJui  i3l9BB 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1/83          BERKELEY  CA  94720 

®$ 


IU 


:• 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


